House of Commons Hansard #387 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was inmates.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Order. There is too much noise. I am having trouble hearing the answers. We need to hear both the questions and the answers. Members have to remember that their side will get their turn in due course. Members have to listen to each other, whether they like what they are saying or not, as my hon. friend for Cariboo—Prince George is aware.
The hon. member for Carleton.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that if he had allowed SNC-Lavalin to face criminal conviction, the company would go out of business, because corporate criminals are banned from federal contracts. But wait; in December 2015, the government gave SNC a deal exempting it from the ban, despite criminal charges. Now the government is changing the policy to exempt SNC even if it is convicted.
If the Prime Minister plans to allow SNC to get contracts, even after a conviction, why did he need to intervene to stop the company from going to trial in the first place?
JusticeOral Questions
Carla Qualtrough Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, Lib.
Mr. Speaker, our government works to ensure the highest ethical standards for government procurement and effectively addressing wrongdoing. We have developed and are implementing a stronger integrity regime that holds companies accountable. PSPC has entered into an administrative agreement with this company while criminal proceedings are under way. This agreement permits the company to contract with the government while meeting strict corporate compliance conditions, ensuring strong oversight while protecting innocent third parties, like pensioners and employees, from financial harm.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, is that not an interesting admission? They now claim that they can sign a direct deal between the public works department and the company to protect pensioners and jobs. That was supposedly the justification for interrupting the criminal proceedings in the first place, so if they have the ability to do this without blocking the prosecution, there must be another motive for having tried to secure a deferred public prosecution agreement.
Will the minister admit that they were just trying to protect their corporate cronies and not the jobs of the workers?
JusticeOral Questions
Carla Qualtrough Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, Lib.
Mr. Speaker, it is the practice of the government to put in place administrative agreements with companies while criminal proceedings are under way. This administrative agreement will terminate if there is a criminal conviction. In the meantime, we cannot comment on any ongoing court cases.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, the government is working now on changing the policy so that the company could get an administrative agreement even after conviction. In other words, it did not need to go about blocking the prosecution to achieve that goal.
If it was not to protect the workers or the pensioners or any other innocent party, who does it leave that the government was actually protecting? Is it not clear that this company, which gave over $100,000 in illegal donations to the Liberal Party, is the real organization these Liberals are trying to protect?
JusticeOral Questions
Carla Qualtrough Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, Lib.
Mr. Speaker, it was the Conservative government that put in place the integrity regime, and our government is working to in fact enhance it. We are increasing the scope of activities that could result in debarment from contracts with the government with our enhanced integrity regime. We are looking at putting in place a stronger integrity regime that definitely will benefit Canadians and make sure that Canadians' money is spent with integrity.
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, people across the country are struggling to afford their medications and struggling to make ends meet. Instead of helping these people, the Liberal government continues to tell them that they must wait.
Unions are in Ottawa this week to urge the government to work on creating a universal pharmacare program that is fully funded for everyone. People clearly need a single-payer universal pharmacare system that provides equal coverage to everyone.
When will this government take action?
Ginette Petitpas Taylor LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, unlike the New Democratic Party, we on this side of the House do our homework.
We want to make sure that we develop a pharmacare plan that will meet the needs of all Canadians. We created the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare to do just that.
I look forward to seeing the council's recommendations. We will receive its report later this year.
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Mr. Speaker, too many people skip the medicine they need because the prices are too high. All Canadians deserve coverage, but instead, the Liberals are cooking up a half-baked plan that leaves workers out. Do the Liberals not know that employer coverage is not what it used to be? Corporations have been rolling back benefits for working people, leaving them with not only less coverage but often with no coverage for the drugs they need.
Canadians want a comprehensive, universal, single-payer pharmacare plan that covers everyone equally. Why are the Liberals refusing to listen?
Ginette Petitpas Taylor LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, with something as important as a national pharmacare program, this side of the House wants to get it done right, and that is why we are doing our homework. I am very pleased that we have put together an advisory council on the implementation of a national pharmacare program. We have six Canadian experts who are looking at this matter and having conversations with Canadians. I look forward to receiving the report later this spring to meet the needs of all Canadians.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the justice committee, retired judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond testified that public officials must be able to point to lawful authority for their actions. What lawful authority did the Prime Minister have to conspire to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with bribery? What lawful authority?
Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, in Canada, we have the rule of law. In Canada, we have a system that works. Canadians can have confidence in that system.
Members from both sides of the aisle sit on the justice committee. The member who asked the question is actually a member of the justice committee. He knows very well that when witnesses appear who have been asked to appear, witnesses are answering questions. We on this side have confidence in the work of the justice committee. It is really too bad that the member and his party do not.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Mr. Speaker, instead of respecting the former attorney general and the independence of her office, the Prime Minister launched a concerted campaign to change her mind, a concerted campaign to interfere with the independence of the office of the Attorney General. What lawful authority did he have to do that?
Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the member continues to speculate rather than look at the facts. Let us look at the record so that Canadians can be reassured that they can have confidence in their institutions. 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. Last week, the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the PMO and the DPP. The Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that at every opportunity, verbally and in writing, the Prime Minister said it was a decision—
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons often talks about what is happening at the justice committee.
In fact, yesterday afternoon, retired judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond testified that all public officials must be able to point to lawful authority for their actions.
In light of this, could the Prime Minister, who refuses to appear in committee, tell us whether he attempted to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with corruption, without regard for lawful authority?
Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, the government, under the Prime Minister's leadership, increased resources to committees to help them do their work.
We know that the MPs who sit on the Standing Committee on Justice, who come from both sides of the aisle, are doing their work. They are asking witnesses to appear, and the witnesses are appearing and answering questions.
The striking thing is that this member claims to have no intention of hurting the employees of SNC-Lavalin. He says so himself. However, the member for Carleton says something quite different in English. He said—
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, that line is getting old.
One thing is for sure: the committee is ready, but the Prime Minister has refused to testify. We also know the Prime Minister and his team pressured the former attorney general to halt criminal proceedings against SNC-Lavalin.
They did not see eye to eye on that, so what did the Prime Minister do? He gave her the boot.
Now Canadians know that their self-styled feminist, transparent government is nothing but a joke.
Once again, by what lawful authority did the Prime Minister attempt to halt criminal proceedings against SNC-Lavalin?
Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have confidence in our institutions and in the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The clerk confirmed that, at every opportunity, the Prime Minister clearly stated that this was a decision for the justice minister to take.
Interestingly, the member opposite himself said he did not intend to harm SNC-Lavalin employees, but, in English, the member for Carleton said he wanted to shut down the company and was not afraid to say so. They need to be clear with the—
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, after eight years in this place, I thought that nothing could surprise me, but the Liberals can.
The National Energy Board said in its report that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion does not respect indigenous rights, that it constitutes a danger to our environment and that it will affect an endangered species. However, the Liberals are going to move forward with the project anyway, on the pretext that it is in the national interest.
Are we to understand that the Liberals believe that protecting our environment and respecting first nations is not in the national interest?
Natural ResourcesOral Questions
Paul Lefebvre Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected our government because of our plan to grow the economy and protect the environment. That is exactly what we are doing with a $1.5-billion investment in our oceans protection plan. We are also following the recommendations made by the Federal Court of Appeal concerning the progress of TMX.
If it were up to the NDP, there would be no new investments in the natural resources sector. Fortunately, it is up to Canadians, who elected a government to grow the economy and protect the environment.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for this genius pipeline-owning Prime Minister, the one who handed over $4.5 billion to a Texas oil company after its pipeline was thrown out of court. Now he is looking to spend another $10 billion to $15 billion of our money.
The National Energy Board admits that this pipeline will hammer the environment, hurt indigenous relations and further wreck our climate. Governing is about making choices, and the Liberals are actually weighing the choice between protecting an orca population, repairing indigenous relations and actually fixing our carbon emissions, or building their pipeline. Which one is it going to be?