House of Commons Hansard #386 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was snc-lavalin.
Andrew Scheer ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, on February 7, the Prime Minister stated that The Globe and Mail report about how he pressured the former attorney general on the SNC-Lavalin case was “false”.
On Thursday, we learned from the Clerk of the Privy Council that there was in fact a concerted effort to interfere in the case against SNC-Lavalin by seeking to influence the then attorney general.
Can the Prime Minister tell us which version of the story is true?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I think it is a good thing that we take seriously our responsibility to stand up for jobs and grow the economy. That is what we will continue to do, in a way that respects our institutions and the independence of our judiciary.
Those are the responsibilities that we have accepted from the very beginning, and that is the work we are doing to create economic growth for all Canadians while defending our institutions, which are so important for our democracy.
Andrew Scheer ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, once again, he cannot provide simple, straightforward answers.
Contrary to the Prime Minister's assertions, the report is true. He met with the Clerk of the Privy Council at noon on December 19. Immediately afterward, the clerk called the former attorney general to inform her that the Prime Minister was quite anxious.
When the Prime Minister ordered the clerk to call the former attorney general, what did he tell him?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we have consistently done what we have always promised Canadians we would do, which is to stand up for good jobs and create economic growth while upholding the integrity and independence of our judicial system and respect for our institutions.
That is what this government has always done, and that is what this government will continue to do.
Andrew Scheer ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has finally found a line that it seems like he might stick with for more than a day. His story has changed nearly every single day since this scandal first broke, and Canadians deserve answers.
The Prime Minister first said that the allegations contained in The Globe and Mail story were false, that no direction or even pressure was applied on the former attorney general. Now we find out from the Clerk of the Privy Council that the Prime Minister's fingerprints are all over this sleazy affair to let his friends off the hook.
Once again, if the decision was the former attorney general's and hers alone to make, why did the Prime Minister try so often to get her to change her mind?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, as I have said from the very beginning, we have consistently and continually stood up for the close to 9,000 jobs at SNC-Lavalin, indeed, good jobs right across the country. That is what Canadians expect of this government, to stick up for jobs, to create new ones and to make sure we grow our economy in ways that benefit everyone.
That is exactly what we will continue to do and we will continue to do it in a way that respects the independence of our judiciary, that respects the integrity of our judicial systems and always respects the rules and norms that govern our institutions.
Andrew Scheer ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, whatever the justification the Prime Minister is going to try to use, he needs to remember one thing: interfering in a criminal court case is always wrong.
The Prime Minister thinks he is above the law, that he can use his power to get his well-connected friends off the hook. That is not the way Canada works.
If the decision was the former attorney general's to make and hers alone, then why did the Prime Minister continually apply pressure to get her to change her mind?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, once again, the member opposite demonstrates that he does not quite understand what he is talking about.
We always take seriously our responsibilities, standing up for jobs and growing the economy. The justice department's official backgrounder on remediation agreements states two of the main purposes for remediation agreements: one, to hold the organization accountable for wrongdoing; and, two, reduce the harm that a criminal conviction of an organization could have for employees, shareholders and other third parties that did not take part in the event. That is what is in the law.
Andrew Scheer ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not seem to understand that it is not the Prime Minister's role to direct prosecutors and judges to give special deals to their friends.
The independent Crown prosecutor determined that SNC-Lavalin did not qualify. The former attorney general seems to have made up her mind that it did not qualify. That is when the Prime Minister and his office went to work with unwanted, coordinated and sustained pressure to force the former attorney general to let his well-connected friends off the hook.
If the Prime Minister is so sure that he did nothing wrong, will he appear before the justice committee to explain his actions?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we will consistently stand up for hard-working Canadians right across the country and be not the least bit apologetic about standing up for good jobs, wherever they are, across the country.
I am pleased also to confirm that later today the government will confirm that the member for Vancouver Granville will be able to address relevant matters at the committee, while ensuring the two active court cases are not jeopardized.
We of course continue to welcome the studies by the Ethics Commissioner and the parliamentary committee.
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has told Canadians to “heed very carefully” the words of Privy Council clerk Michael Wernick.
Last week, that clerk said, “ I do not see where the former Attorney General was a solicitor. The matter was never discussed at cabinet...So she was not giving advice to cabinet. She was not advising the Prime Minister.” Therefore, he concluded that solicitor-client privilege did not even apply here.
Since the Prime Minister has said we should heed the clerk, I have a simple question. Will he allow the former attorney general to speak her truth?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, later today the government will confirm the member can address relevant matters at the committee, while ensuring of course that the two active court cases are not jeopardized. We continue to welcome the studies by the committee and the Ethics Commissioner.
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Speaker, on September 4, SNC was told there was no deal. On September 17, the Prime Minister and Privy Council clerk met with the former attorney general to discuss SNC. On December 5, the Prime Minister's top staffer, Gerry Butts, met with her to discuss it. On December 18, the Prime Minister's two top staffers met with her chief of staff to discuss it. On December 19, the Privy Council clerk called her to discuss it. On January 14, the former attorney general was fired from her role.
How can Canadians, who are reviewing these facts, not conclude there was relentless pressure to have her change her mind?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, last week 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 will consistently, and regularly, stand up for jobs across the country, and will do so in a way that respects the independence of our judiciary and the integrity of our institutions.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, after changing his story every day for nearly three weeks now, the Prime Minister spent the weekend telling people they should listen to the Clerk of the Privy Council.
The Clerk of the Privy Council said very clearly that, in his opinion, solicitor-client privilege and cabinet privilege do not apply to the former attorney general.
Will the Prime Minister listen to the clerk and allow the former attorney general to tell Canadians the truth?
Will he finally allow her to speak her truth?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Yes, Mr. Speaker. Later today the government will confirm the member can 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.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, the key words are “relevant matter”.
This is not the first time the Liberals have rewritten our laws to suit their friends, but this time they are truly pulling out all the stops.
Not only did the Liberals change the Criminal Code to help SNC-Lavalin executives, but once the former attorney general said no, they decided to also change our procurement systems to help SNC-Lavalin.
When their rich friends ask for help, the Liberals leap to their aid, but when it comes to ordinary Canadians, the Liberals tell them to wait.
When will the Liberals tell the truth and show some transparency?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, that is exactly what we are doing.
We will stand up for good jobs, including jobs at SNC-Lavalin across the country, for the nearly 10,000 Canadians who work there.
As far as remediation agreements are concerned, the Department of Justice's official backgrounder confirms that there are two purposes for such agreements: to hold the organization accountable for the wrongdoing; and, importantly, to reduce harm that a criminal conviction of an organization could have for employees, shareholders and other third parties who did not take part—
Andrew Scheer ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, here is a very simple and easy question for the Prime Minister to answer.
On December 5, the Prime Minister's principal secretary met with the former attorney general in the bar at the Château Laurier. It appears that the purpose of that meeting was to put even more pressure on the former attorney general to change her mind and to allow a special deal to be made over the objections of independent Crown prosecutors.
Was the Prime Minister aware that his principal secretary was meeting with the former attorney general on December 5?
Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it is important that the record show that the director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case “exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”
It also important to note that the matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner as well as the justice committee. The justice committee has members from both sides present. They are working together to ensure that witnesses are appearing. Witnesses are being called and are answering tough questions from members of Parliament on both sides. I am not sure why the member is undermining that work.
Andrew Scheer ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister cannot answer these questions, perhaps the government House leader can answer the question.
If she has so much faith in the justice committee now that it is finally starting to allow witnesses to appear, even though originally it seems her office directed the committee members not to allow that to happen—if she has so much confidence and faith in the justice committee's work, will Liberal members be supporting this motion before the House today to force the Prime Minister to attend and explain his actions?
Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it is important that the record show that it was actually this government under the leadership of this Prime Minister that increased resources to committees.
The record should also show that it was that member's party that put out a rule book that would undermine the work of committees. They had no respect for committees over 10 years of Stephen Harper.
What is clear is that the Conservatives have chosen—
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Order. I would ask the hon. members for Chilliwack—Hope and Barrie—Innisfil not to interrupt when someone else has the floor. Each side will get its turn.
The hon. government House leader has the floor.