Debates of Feb. 28th, 2019

Alleged Interference in Justice System

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

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Conservative Party has called for, if there is not already one, an investigation by the RCMP.

There have been a lot of opinions expressed from both sides tonight, but we need to appreciate the reason we have called for that investigation to be opened, if there is not one already. It is simply because if the RCMP discovers there is evidence of obstruction of justice, and an independent prosecutor agrees with that evidence and says it is in the public interest to carry forward, and in a court process that is independent of this place and independent of any power other than its own processes, a judge finds there to be an obstruction of justice, then it is a criminal offence, and those are the only people who should be saying it. I may have an opinion and lawyers may have a legal opinion, but until a judge actually gives a ruling, it will not happen.

Does the member support that verification through that process by an independent process?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why the leader of Canada's Conservatives called for an independent investigation and for the RCMP to investigate exactly what has gone on.

It is not just the leader of the official opposition and Conservatives who are calling for this on behalf of all Canadians who care about the rule of law and the integrity of our institutions. In fact, five former attorneys general right across the country are asking for an investigation to commence. They say:

We, the undersigned, have served Canada as either federal or provincial Attorney General.

In our shared view, ordinary Canadians, who do not benefit from political connections, have been charged under these sections with much less evidence.

We are aware of media reports that the RCMP is seized with this matter. However, we write today to urge you to ensure that you use all resources at your disposal to fully and fairly investigate any potential criminality and provide Canadians with the truth in this crucial matter, as it strikes at the core of the rule of law and independence of our justice system.

Every single one of the Liberals who ran in the last election who go on and on about their respect for institutions and openness and transparency should all be ashamed. Every single one of them should be standing up and calling for the exact same thing.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Irwin Cotler, the well-respected former justice minister and attorney general spoke on the radio today, by way of analysis. I will quote him and it may take a little while, so please, bear with me.

It states, “There is an inherent tension between the two roles. As Minister of Justice, you are a member of cabinet with other ministers. You're bound by cabinet secrecy and cabinet solidarity, but as Attorney General you have to speak, to use her words, 'truth to power', and it may contradict with what some of the other ministers might feel. They then speak to you out of their political hats, but they don't always realize when they speak to you that you are wearing not only a political hat but that you are wearing also a legal hat. When it comes, as in the matter of prosecutions, there is another dimension of independence and the rule of law all bound up, so there are these psychological dynamics and you can have a situation where the people whom she spoke with, each of them may have felt that when they were speaking to her they were giving her information that they felt was important for her to know or to help her make up her mind. Yet when she experienced it coming from 10 different people, then she experienced it as being a concerted and sustained pressure, which she deemed to be inappropriate. So they may have felt they were acting in a proper manner from the point of view of intention, but the consequence ended up being felt by her as being inappropriate.”

This points to a potential difference of perspective and I think the member should take it into account. If she's—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Lakeland.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that when Canadians observe all of this and, in their final judgment, decide whether they believe the Prime Minister with a pattern of interference, obfuscating, evasiveness, blaming others, changing a story over three weeks, and contradicting himself on nearly a daily basis, against the calm, concise, detailed, recorded, substantive testimony of an experienced lawyer, a well-known indigenous leader, the former attorney general, they are going to believe her. I think they are getting sick and tired of the Liberals blaming everybody else's perceptions and experiences for their own inappropriate behaviour and inability to do what is right.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Spadina—Fort York.

Under the Department of Justice Act, the Minister of Justice is also the Attorney General of Canada. The two positions are distinct, even though they are held by the same person.

As the holder of both positions, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada has four main roles. First, the minister is the official legal adviser to the Government of Canada. Second, the minister is responsible for laws and policies relating to the justice portfolio. Third, the minister represents the Crown in all civil litigation. Fourth, the minister is the attorney general for all federal prosecutions.

The Minister of Justice is the official legal adviser to the Governor General and the legal expert in cabinet. As such, the minister of justice is responsible for ensuring that the administration of justice under federal jurisdiction is in accordance with the law. As Attorney General, that same minister is responsible for advising the heads of the several departments of the government on all matters of law connected with the departments.

Legal advice is always given independently. The legal advice of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General is based solely on the law, doctrine and applicable jurisprudence. The principles of law are the only relevant considerations when providing legal advice. That is part of the unique experience of the minister's mandate and of the department supporting him or her. Although the constitution of the client departments, agencies and sometimes other departments may be required to establish the facts, the context and underlying political objectives of the request for advice and the legal advice itself must be provided without partisan or political influence.

The Minister of Justice is also responsible for laws and policies relating to the justice portfolio. Like other ministers, when the justice minister creates a policy, he or she works closely with certain cabinet colleagues or the Privy Council Office to ensure that these initiatives are aligned with the government's legislative agenda. In accordance with the Department of Justice Act, the Attorney General of Canada is responsible for any litigation involving the Crown or the departments.

In the conduct of civil litigation, the Attorney General does not have exclusive decision-making power over litigation positions. In civil litigation, sifting through the available and viable legal arguments to determine the position to take in a given case often involves a high level of policy. In that sense, civil litigation is markedly different from criminal litigation.

The entire government is elected to determine what is in the public interest. The Attorney General is responsible for defending cabinet's public policy decisions before the civil courts, thereby helping the government to meet the objectives it was elected on. Provided these decisions seek to adopt a valid legal position, it is appropriate for the Attorney General to adopt such a position. If not, this could be perceived as a lack of solidarity with cabinet, an important aspect of the constitutional convention of collective ministerial responsibility to Parliament.

However, as far as his role in prosecutions is concerned, the Attorney General must act independently, not taking any orders from anyone, as an attorney general in England declared in 1925. More precisely, the Attorney General must act independently of partisan considerations. The Supreme Court determined that this was a fundamental constitutional principle of our democratic government.

Identifying those who need to be prosecuted for crimes and determining sentences should be based on evidence alone and on the proper administration of criminal law. However, it is advisable for the Attorney General to be informed of the relevant context. Let me repeat that because it is important: it is advisable for the Attorney General to be informed of the relevant context, including the potential consequences of a given prosecution. This may give rise to a need to discuss matters with colleagues.

In 2006, the Director of Public Prosecutions Act created an independent entity known as the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. The act enshrined the role of the Attorney General in federal prosecutions by giving the director of public prosecutions the power to initiate and conduct prosecutions. The director acts as the deputy attorney general of Canada when initiating and conducting federal prosecutions on behalf of the Attorney General.

In most cases, the Attorney General will not be involved in the decision-making process with respect to prosecution. However, the Director of Public Prosecutions Act requires the director to inform the Attorney General of any prosecution that raises important questions of general interest. The act therefore guarantees that the Attorney General will be informed of any important criminal matters, and nothing prevents the Attorney General from discussing them with his or her cabinet colleagues.

The Attorney General can issue directives to the director of public prosecutions that may be general or pertain to specific prosecutions. When a directive is issued, it is issued through a totally transparent process. It is published in the Canada Gazette and accessible to all Canadians.

As an aside, I would like to thank the public servants who work for the Canada Gazette. It is an important institution that has existed for 178 years. During my many years as a federal public servant, I had the good fortune of heading up the Canada Gazette for a few years. I am particularly proud of all the public servants who work there and who ensure that that institution remains vibrant and crucial to our democratic system.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, they will be especially proud to hear this applause. I will go on.

A general directive must be preceded by a consultation with the director of public prosecutions. The Attorney General may, after consulting the director of public prosecutions, assume conduct of the prosecution. This is also done through a transparent process in which the Attorney General must publish a notice of intent to assume conduct of a prosecution in the Canada Gazette.

As far as obtaining comments from other individuals in the exercise of his or her power to issue directives or assume conduct of a prosecution under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, it is appropriate for the Attorney General to consult his or her cabinet colleagues before exercising these powers. These consultations are often important, because they help the Attorney General understand points of view that are not limited to a specific case. However, the final decision to issue directives or assume conduct of a prosecution is up to the Attorney General. In any case, it is important that the Attorney General be able to consult his or her cabinet colleagues on matters related to prosecution, but that he or she not receive instructions on criminal matters from cabinet colleagues or anyone else.

The Supreme Court found that, in the course of his or her duties, the Attorney General acts in the public interest and is protected from the influence of political and other undue aggravating factors by the principle of independence. From the beginning, the Prime Minister has clearly stated that he and his staff always acted appropriately and professionally. As the Prime Minister said, we completely disagree with the former attorney general's characterization of events.

Our government will always focus on jobs, growing the middle class and strengthening our economy. That is an important aspect of this discussion, because we, on this side of the House, will always stand up for Canadian workers and job creation. That is what we are accomplishing with the agenda we have put in place. Over 800,000 jobs have been created over the past three years, and the unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in 40 years. In my riding, over 221 jobs have been created, which has created an important economic dynamic. We are very proud of that. Our objective has always been to defend jobs.

Obviously, the possible loss of 9,000 jobs in communities across Canada has come up in today's discussion, and it is the Prime Minister's job to always stand up for the interests of Canadian workers.

From the beginning, the Prime Minister has clearly stated that he and his staff always acted appropriately and professionally. As the Prime Minister said, we disagree with the former attorney general's characterization of events.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the course of the evening we have heard about the varying levels of worthiness of former attorneys general. The member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell exclaimed that the opinions of former attorneys general were not worthy to call out this scandal for what it was.

I would like to quote Michael Bryant, the former Liberal attorney general, who said in today's Globe and Mail, “Her testimony disclosed a constitutional crisis far worse than what I envisioned.” He went on to say:

She says it was a bald attempt by the Prime Minister to exercise his cabinet-making power over her quasi-judicial authority. I am personally very familiar with the tactic, but have never seen evidence of it used on an attorney-general in this brazen, reckless fashion.

Having heard from another attorney general and hopefully having been a Liberal worthy enough for recognition by the Liberal members opposite, does the member now believe that an RCMP investigation should be called?

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the member opposite that in a democracy, it is important to engage in consultations and discussions before any decision is made.

Sometimes, on this side of the House, we have robust discussions, but these are important so that we can look at all of the facts and make an informed decision.

I think this is part of our job as members of Parliament, parliamentary secretaries or ministers to get a wide range of opinions. Some opinions are often more insistent than others, and this is how we are able to make informed decisions.

The answer to me is clear. In a situation like this, it makes sense to hold consultations and discussions to arrive at an informed decision. The former minister of justice and attorney general was clear when she testified before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We never did anything illegal. Nothing illegal was done here.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

During our former attorney general's testimony, it was clear that she had made a decision based on section 13 notices. As members of Parliament, we do not have access to this notice, but our former attorney general clearly thought it was rational, clear and reasonable.

I do not see how anyone could expect her to act otherwise, given the independence of the attorney general at the Department of Justice. Her main role is to make decisions, and it is also up to her to determine whether it is reasonable.

This evening's debate raises a lot of concerns for me. How can anyone think she should hold broad consultations with Canadians? That is a legal question that falls under the purview of the Department of Justice and its officials.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that my colleague's French is excellent. She expresses herself very well in French and I would like to congratulate her.

As I was saying earlier, when the former attorney general testified, she stated that the Prime Minister told her that the decision was hers to make. That is important because it was up to her to make it.

She also stated that the staff of the Prime Minister's Office said that it did not want to cross any lines. She even added that it was appropriate to discuss any job impacts and to consider a series of factors. Ultimately, the former attorney general made the decision not to move forward and, in our view, it is clear that the law was obeyed at every step of the process.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by paying my respect to the member for Vancouver Granville. She is a colleague, a friend and someone whose principles I admire and whose determination to do the right thing we all can respect. We saw that on display yesterday. We have certainly seen it inside caucus for the time we have been in government and worked together.

It is important that in this process she be respected. She has fulfilled her duties and done them well. While the member for Vancouver Granville may have some new converts on the other side, those of us who have worked with her have known she has these principles and she has acted on principle throughout this entire situation.

I also want to note that we are discussing a matter which is in front of the courts still. SNC-Lavalin has been brought to court, as the public record shows, on some very serious charges. It is proper that those charges be adjudicated through the process in which it currently finds itself. It is important to note that those criminal proceedings are still happening. We often hear from the other side that somehow something has been suspended or something untoward has happened, but the reality is that the company is being held to account for practices for which it will have to answer.

When it comes to deferred prosecution agreements, the law that governs the use of these agreements is very clear. They are there to ensure that for people unassociated with the charges, damage is not done to them accidentally through a verdict and sentencing and that people are protected. It is important to protect people in the justice system, especially innocent people. The lives of thousands of people could be impacted by whatever decision is rendered in that court.

As part of the legal framework that governs the way in which courts have to respond to these charges, there is provision for the minister to intervene, once the public prosecution office has rendered a path forward. That is permissible under our laws, and we have had many members here stand today and talk about when and how that aspect of the law should be applied.

It is there because there other considerations. Responsible governments have to balance impacts at times. It is not that the Constitution and jobs are at conflict. It is that both have to be held with equal weight and in their proper place as the government moves forward.

Therefore, when we look at these cases, the other thing we know is that as the evidence is put on the record, as discovery is pursued, as lawyers talk, it is a fluid process. As we heard yesterday in the testimony from the former attorney general, even the lead prosecutor and the chief prosecutor all the way through this process were talking about what was the right course of action, based on evidence and offers from the other side. It is not a simple sequential thing where, once the chief prosecutor makes a decision, everything just falls into order. There are negotiations. There are conversations. There are moments in court. These things happen.

At the same time, the impact of a decision can also be measured differently as circumstances change around the case, as shareholder meetings are held, as economic conditions and other court cases are rendered, as the health and strength of economies ebb and flow, as contracts are let and, in this case, as new infrastructure programs move forward. Therefore, it is not unusual for lawyers to talk back and forth. Nor is it unusual for government officials to talk back and forth about what the implications and the circumstances are and what the possible outcomes might be and the impact that they might have on Canadians. We have a responsibility to the Constitution and we have a responsibility to the law, but we also have a responsibility to ensure that the lives of Canadians are kept safe, especially the lives of innocent Canadian hat could be impacted by a court decision like this.

Therefore, there is no final decision in this process. There is a series of evaluations that have to happen and those evaluations are right and proper, provided they are done within the framework of the law that governs deferred prosecution agreements.

It is not wrong for a government to be concerned about people's lives, about pensioners and the impact a decision might have on the viability of their pensions, and about municipalities that have contracted with the company involved and whether the projects they are involved in may stall, such as a water plant or, as we have in the case of Ottawa, an LRT that is being built. The people on those job sites also have a right to make sure that their innocence is protected through the decisions and impacts this government has carriage of, and the government does have carriage of it.

When we look at that, and we heard from some members from Quebec who were very eloquent about this, we have a responsibility to measure outcomes, to predict possibilities, to explore various outcomes and to make sure that the proceedings are kept within the boundaries of the law but at the same time are measured and thoughtful. That requires, from time to time, checking in with the Minister of Justice. It also requires the Minister of Justice checking in from time to time with cabinet colleagues, caucus colleagues and I would say members of Parliament. I do not think that is unexpected, unwarranted or wrong.

The issue then becomes how we balance this within the law. I think some of the members opposite have contributed to the debate and have deepened our understanding. I look to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who has had very reasonable and well-articulated arguments presented on the floor. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has done the same, as has our esteemed colleague from Victoria. We are being tested to make sure that we are doing the right thing in the right way, in the same way that the former justice minister assured us that she was trying to do the right thing in the right way.

Through all of this, the issue that now has been presented to us by the opposition is whether the Prime Minister should resign. Of course, he should not, because he too is doing his job. He is making sure that every outcome, every possibility and every impact is understood and that all decisions are being made in a fluid situation, in a very dynamic situation. That is what I expect of a prime minister in a country like Canada. I also expect those decisions to be tested by the opposition. They have been tonight and probably will be for days to come.

However, in the end, the issue that I think defines this is the fact that the court case continues. Even if a deferred prosecution agreement is offered or materializes, if that is the decision of an independent prosecution office not directed by our government, because that is still an option for an independent prosecution office to make if that is the best way forward in its independent judgment, it is not a get-out-of-jail card for SNC-Lavalin. For an agreement to be entered into, there is still an acknowledgement of guilt. Otherwise, it cannot move forward. There are still punishments afforded that acknowledgement that must be lived up to. Otherwise, the deferred prosecution is no longer deferred and it is re-engaged. In other words, the criminal charge hangs over the accused company until such time as proper penalties have been paid, penalties that do not impact innocent Canadians, do not rob them of their jobs, take away pensions, collapse critical infrastructure, hurt communities or disrupt good, strong investments that have been made right across this country.

The issue that stands at the heart of this conversation is how we respect the law, how we balance the interests of innocent Canadians and protect them and how we are held to account by Parliament while we do that. I am confident that the government has done the right thing, that the former attorney general has done the right thing and that the Prime Minister has done the right thing. I agree that the opposition is doing its job holding us to account and making us explain the circumstances we find ourselves in.

The final point I will make is this. The former attorney general has done what she was asked to do, which was to make the decision she had to make and come to committee to be held accountable for it and explain it. This Parliament and this government are now in a position to figure out what the next steps are. I am prepared to be held to account as a member of this government, but I am also prepared to stand in support of my Prime Minister.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two points I would like to make.

The first is that while the pressure that was applied to the former attorney general this past autumn may have not crossed the line of the Criminal Code as she has indicated, it certainly is clear that it crossed a line of a much higher order and that is the line as it is embodied in our constitutional law, both written in the Constitution Acts of this country and the constitutional law as it is outlined in the unwritten conventions that govern the division of powers and the rule of law in this country. It is clear that this higher law was contravened over the course of the autumn as this relentless, sustained and prolonged pressure was put on the former attorney general.

The second quick point I want to make is that we in the House, on all sides, care about Canadian companies and care about Canadian jobs whether they are in Quebec or in Alberta. That is not the issue here at hand. The issue here at hand concerns the fundamental constitutional principles that govern this country. If we diminish those principles like the rule of law, we also diminish the other principles and conventions in the Constitution, principles that protect minorities in this country, principles that protect the French fact in this country, principles that protect French language minority rights in the rest of Canada and the rights of Francophones in the province of Quebec. That is why the issue in front of us is so serious and so great.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the argument that the member opposite is presenting but I disagree with two parts of it.

The first is the characterization of the conversations and the exchanges between members of this government and the former attorney general. Those characterizations, not necessarily in his speech but across the night tonight, have been exaggerated to extraordinary lengths. They are not the way she described them. They are the way the member's party has described them and they are different. Because they are different, I do not share them.

The second one is that the member opposite has offered an opinion and it is an important subject that he is offering an opinion on, but it is his opinion of the legal circumstances in this situation.

A member was speaking to me once about our caucus and the fact that we have 45 lawyers in our caucus who suddenly upon getting elected as MPs all became constitutional lawyers and experts in the Constitution. I appreciate that most lawyers are given that course in law school but the reality is that a legal opinion is a legal opinion. It is not a finding of fact. You may have come to a conclusion but that does not mean it is the right conclusion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I just want to remind hon. members to make their questions or their comments through the Chair. The Speaker being perfectly neutral does not come to any conclusions other than what is in the books.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did listen attentively to the hon. member's speech. The main crux of his argument I think it would be fair to say is that the Prime Minister has a responsibility to look out for Canadian jobs. That is fair enough. I do not think anybody would dispute that the Prime Minister of Canada should be concerned about Canadian jobs but there are also other important principles at play, even in the legislation that lays out the possibility of establishing deferred prosecution agreements of the type that someone suggested SNC-Lavalin should get.

The legislation has a section “Factors not to consider” and that section reads:

Despite paragraph (2)(i), if the organization is alleged to have committed an offence under section 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, the prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest, the potential effect on relations with a state other than Canada or the identity of the organization or individual involved.

Beyond that, it is up to the independent prosecutor to make that decision. The prosecutor made that determination. The former attorney general was clear that she had made a decision not to interfere with that, and the Prime Minister and his officials continued to pressure her to reverse that decision. That is the problem here and it goes beyond the Prime Minister's responsibility to be a defender of Canadian jobs.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was very clear that the considerations were innocent people and the consideration of those innocent people is a primary responsibility of the Prime Minister.

I also was, I hope, clear in saying that while there was a constant conversation, a series of conversations, 10 in person and 10 by email, about reconsidering, rethinking, getting different legal opinions and making sure that all of the information that was possibly there was there to be considered. That is not improper, and it is not improper for the Prime Minister to have to balance these competing interests.

Absolutely obey the law but considering all the options available under the law is equally an opportunity and responsibility given to the Prime Minister and to this government to make sure that a good decision is made in the right way within the boundaries as spelled out by the hon. member opposite.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight to talk about a serious charge made by the former attorney general at committee yesterday. At committee she said, “For a period of approximately four months, between September and December of 2018, I experienced a consistent and sustained effort by many people within the government to seek to politically interfere in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in my role as the Attorney General of Canada in an inappropriate effort to secure a deferred prosecution agreement with SNC-Lavalin.”

It is a pretty serious charge. At the heart of the charge is a company that employs many people—and we are grateful for good jobs in Canada—but that is not a free pass to do whatever the company would like.

This is a company whose boardroom has a checkered past. For instance, SNC-Lavalin has been banned by the World Bank from bidding on contracts for 10 years, after investigations revealed that it undertook bribery schemes in Bangladesh and Cambodia. As well, a former SNC-Lavalin executive recently pleaded guilty to breaking election laws to funnel tens of thousands of dollars into the coffers of both the Liberal and Conservative parties. It is a company that in 2011 was able to buy Atomic Energy of Canada's commercial operations for only $15 million, including the plans to the CANDU reactor, and at the same time got a guarantee of $75 million worth of contracts for the work, which more than pays for the price it paid for an important Canadian asset, the plans for the CANDU reactor.

Currently, SNC is part of a consortium that stands to benefit from a multi-billion-dollar capital project right here in downtown Ottawa, with the privatization of the operations of the heating and cooling plant that serves many buildings downtown, including the very building we are in right now.

Now we hear of political interference by the Prime Minister on that company's behalf—not for the workers, but to help SNC-Lavalin executives escape these criminal charges. I will have more to say on that further on in my remarks.

In response to the testimony we heard from the former attorney general that there was a sustained effort to pressure her inappropriately into changing her position, the NDP has called for the Prime Minister to waive cabinet confidence for the period after she was fired from the position of Attorney General but was still in cabinet, because that was not waived and she was very clear at committee that there are elements to the story that bear on her ultimate decision to resign from cabinet that she is not able to tell because they continue to be covered under those confidences.

We have also asked that the justice committee hear from the 11 people the MP for Vancouver Granville named as part of the pressure campaign, who include the Prime Minister. Certainly he has details about what went on that Canadians would like to know and that are essential to being able to understand the nature of what transpired, so he ought to appear before committee.

We also called for a full public inquiry when the story broke some time ago, and we renewed our call because there are a lot of moving parts to this story. I do not think that comes as a surprise to anyone here. It seems there are new revelations almost every day. The scope of the current investigations is simply not adequate for the task of understanding the entirety of what is going on. Each investigation may bear important fruit in terms of figuring out a piece of the puzzle, but by no means can any one of the existing investigations tell the whole story. That is why it is important that we have a public inquiry.

Why is it important to get to the bottom of this? Anyone who has ever been pressured or bullied into doing something they thought was a bad idea probably has a sense of what is wrong with this picture, and anyone who has been pressured or bullied by someone in a position of authority over them will have an even better idea. Perhaps it is a supervisor at work who can terminate someone's position and take away their salary or a landlord who governs whether or not one someone can stay in an apartment unit. It could be a parole officer or a team coach. These are people someone in positions of authority. By and large, people who occupy those positions do a good job and are leaders in our community, but when people in those kinds of positions decide to abuse that power and authority, it is an awful feeling to be subject to it. It is ugly and it is wrong.

The allegation is that the Prime Minister, his principal secretary, his chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council, who all have a lot of authority and power, did just such a thing. According to the former attorney general, as I said, they used that power to inappropriately pressure her to reverse a decision of the director of public prosecutions in order to get a corporation charged with bribery of public officials out of facing criminal charges. The Prime Minister wants to chalk that up to a difference in perspectives and he wants to put his word up against hers.

However, I think anyone who watched the testimony yesterday would have seen that the member for Vancouver Granville offered a calm, consistent, well-documented testimony and she embodied everything one would expect in a credible witness. I believe her testimony, and I encourage any Canadians listening at home to watch it for themselves if they have any doubt. While she and I disagree on a number of policy matters, and we have had disagreements in the House, I do respect her integrity. She has set an example for us all in the way she has conducted herself in a very difficult situation, and that example stands for all of us, whatever our political stripe.

The former attorney general was taking decisions that were hers to take. It was a decision not of the Prime Minister but of the former attorney general whether to negotiate a deferred prosecution agreement. When she said that she had made up her mind, the decision was taken.

It was not inappropriate initially for the Prime Minister to have some conversation with her about the economic impact of these things. That is part of good policy-making and good decision-making, frankly. However, when she said that she had considered those things and had made up her mind, that ought to have been the end of it.

However, we did not hear in her testimony that when the Prime Minister and various officials at the top levels of government kept coming back at her and her staff to try to convince them to change this decision, that they were presenting any new information. Perhaps if the Prime Minister would like to come to committee and testify, then he could tell us what new information he was offering her, but that is not what we have heard. We have heard that they were coming with similar arguments and veiled threats to get her to change her mind.

She stood up to the Prime Minister and his team for the sake of an important principle, which is the rule of law. Why is that important? The rule of law gives us rights. It is what protects us from egomaniacs and bullies that sometimes make it into positions of power.

As Canadians, we are entitled to a fair hearing and equal treatment before the law. We can contrast that with other places in the world today or in times past where people live or lived in fear of the whims of people at the top. We passed laws over time to build a system that protected Canadians from that kind of arbitrary treatment, but there is no law we can pass that can guarantee that forever. Protecting our rights, just like protecting our democracy, is a job that is never done and it is why moments like this are so important.

The rule of law and democracy also have an important cultural component. We have to build a culture of respect for rules and due process in our institutions if we want to safeguard democracy and the rule of law. The higher up the food chain one goes, the more power one has, the more important it is for democracy and the rule of law that one conducts oneself according to the highest ethical standard and in respect of those rules. The member for Vancouver Granville lived up to her duty in that regard, but based on her testimony yesterday, the Prime Minister and his team fell far short of that mark.

On December 5, in a meeting with the former PMO principal secretary, Gerry Butts, he is alleged by the former attorney general to have talked to her chief of staff about how the statute was set up by Harper and that he did not like the law, as if that were relevant. In a December 18 meeting, Gerry Butts and the PMO chief of staff, Katie Telford, told Jessica Prince in the former attorney general's office that a resolution to the DPA situation was necessary. He stated, “Jess, there is no solution here that does not involve some interference.” Telford stated, “We don't want to debate legalities anymore.” That is from the member for Vancouver Granville's testimony yesterday.

In a December 19 phone call between the former attorney general and the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Clerk stated that “I think he”, the Prime Minister, “is going to find a way to get it done, one way or another. He is in that kind of mood, and I wanted you to be aware of it.” He also told the former attorney general that she did not want to be on a collision course with the Prime Minister.

For some reason, the Prime Minister felt that he could override the independence of the attorney general. Perhaps that should not come as a surprise. He was, after all, the first Canadian prime minister to be found guilty of ethics violations by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

What about when KPMG ran into trouble? The Liberals were willing to cut a secret deal when KPMG was found to have devised a tax-dodging scheme. All KPMG had to was pay the taxes it owed, without penalties. It got amnesty, and there was secrecy around most of the terms of its settlement.

This is the government that made a science out of cash-for-access fundraising, which has a whole world of ethical problems in and of itself, and it is something we have to watch out for, because a culture of entitlement like this can easily slip into habits of corruption.

That is why it is important to be vigilant. It is also why it is important to get to the bottom of what happened. It is why it is so important that the former attorney general be able to tell her full story. It is why it is important that the Prime Minister waive the rules of cabinet confidence not only for the period when she was the Attorney General, which has been done, but also for the period when she was the veterans affairs minister.

She made it clear in her testimony that there are things she cannot say about her ultimate decision to resign from cabinet because of something, presumably, like a conversation or something else, that happened between the time she took the job as veterans affairs minister and the time she resigned from cabinet.

It is also why it is so important that we have a full public inquiry and get to the bottom of what happened.

Having established the importance of the issue, I want to take some time to address some of the arguments I have heard from Liberal members in the chamber today.

They have said that the opposition should not be concerned about this because an investigation is happening at the justice committee. I respect that the justice committee has a job to do. However, I believe the scope of the study it has selected is already too narrow to capture everything that is going on. Within the scope of the study the committee selected, we will not get to the bottom of all the allegations that have come out from the testimony.

As well, it needs to be said that there is a fundamental political conflict of interest in leaving that investigation to a committee that is dominated by Liberals, who have a clear political interest in ensuring that the problem goes away so that it does not ultimately hurt the Prime Minister. The fact that so many Liberals seem to be blind to that fact or do not really see a problem with that or understand why people would have legitimate concerns about the justice committee being the principal forum for getting to the bottom of this is very telling in terms of how the government got into this kind of trouble in the first place. Liberals do not seem able to identify these kinds of obvious, or at the very least apparent, conflicts.

When we pursue the highest ethical standards, as the Prime Minister told his ministers in his mandate letters he wanted to do and as he told Canadians he wanted to do in the 2015 election, apparent conflicts of interest are just as important as actual conflicts of interest. There is certainly an apparent conflict of interest when six Liberal members of Parliament are going to be the final adjudicators on what has happened in this case.

The Liberals have also said that since the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is running an investigation, we should not be concerned. They say we should not have any extra questions, as he is going to decide everything. We are quite aware of that. In fact, it was the NDP Party that requested that investigation.

It is not that we do not have confidence in the commissioner and therefore want a public inquiry and it is not that we do not think there is some value to the investigation that is going on; it is that the commissioner's investigation is also limited in scope. It is limited by the very rules that set up the office of the commissioner and gave him his powers and responsibilities.

As such, there is no way his report is going to get to the bottom of all of what we have heard. These allegations of political interference fall outside the narrow scope given to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, who only looks into conflicts of interest as they pertain to the direct financial interests of a member of the House. We will be interested to hear the conclusion of his investigation, but there is certainly a lot more going on here than that.

The Liberals also say that another reason we should not worry is that the director of public prosecutions has said that she made an independent decision. No one has ever doubted that she made an independent decision. The problem was not that somehow her decision was not independent; the problem was that after that decision was made, political actors, including the Prime Minister and those in his office, sought to reverse that decision. Furthermore, they did not just do it with a one-off conversation with the former attorney general. They coordinated a pressure campaign in order to try to reverse that decision.

That is the problem. Let us not see anyone get up to say that the director of public prosecutions made her decision independently. Of course she did. The question is whether someone else sought to overturn that decision for political reasons.

I have heard the Liberals stand up today and say that the Prime Minister told the former attorney general that it was her decision at the time, so there is nothing to see here and not to worry. I do not doubt that he did. That is a pretty good way to cover his behind. I can believe that she even took him at his word at the time, which is what she said in testimony. When she was fired from the position, that probably changed her point of view about the conversation they had when she was told that it was really her decision and hers alone. When she made the decision the Prime Minister clearly did not want, she lost the job. That cast a whole new light on the conversations they had had up to then, which she reasonably may have thought were sincere.

We have also been told that we should be quiet, because the Prime Minister gave her a waiver on solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality. The thing that leaves out is the fact that the waiver on cabinet confidentiality does not cover the period when she was in cabinet between the time she was fired from her job as attorney general and took the job as the veterans affairs minister and when she chose to resign. She was very clear at committee that there are aspects of the story she is unable to tell. Presumably something happened in that period that made her change her mind. If we are going to get to the bottom of this, we need to know exactly what that was.

My colleague from Victoria presented a motion yesterday at committee simply asking that the justice committee request of the Prime Minister that cabinet confidentiality be waived. It does not have any power to compel the Prime Minister to waive it. I watched as each Liberal member of that committee voted the motion down and refused to at least ask the Prime Minister to take it upon himself to liberate the former attorney general to tell her full story.

I know I only have a few minutes left. I want to talk about the principal argument we have heard in this place in terms of the Liberals' defence, which is jobs, jobs, jobs and that they want to save the jobs. Everyone here has an interest in seeing Canadian employed, but that does not mean anything goes. It cannot be a get-out-of-jail-free card. It cannot be that if a company is big enough and employs enough people, it can bribe public officials and get off the hook. That is completely inappropriate.

Was it about the workers? Was it about the jobs? When we heard from the former attorney general that the Prime Minister was raising political concerns about the fact that he was the MP for Papineau and there was a Quebec election and something had to be done about this, it was not about the workers or their jobs. It was about the political interests of the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party. That is what it was about, and it had very little to do with the workers.

What could have been an option, which is something the Liberals are also pursuing, was reforming the integrity regime with the 10-year ban on contracts. In fact, it is an option they are pursuing. I dare say that this is the appropriate option, not looking at inappropriate pressure to abandon criminal charges but looking at the sanctions regime and maybe changing it. That is where the conversation should have happened. They have prejudiced and sullied that conversation, because no matter what they do now, it is going to look like they are exercising all the options and pulling out all the stops to help get SNC-Lavalin off the hook.

The Minister of Public Services and Procurement was at committee yesterday. I asked her a simple question many times. I asked if she would say that the bribery of public officials is a serious offence and would be treated as a serious offence in the new integrity policy. She told me that the government does not have a position on the hierarchy of offences. That is what she said. As the minister who oversees the largest capital budget in government, she refused to say that she thought the bribery of public officials was a serious offence. I could not believe it. It is a testament to how deep the desire to help out this company goes in the government and how fearful people on the other benches are of doing anything that could undermine the interests of that company.

I hope I get a chance in questions and answers to talk a bit more about workers and the record of the government when it comes to workers. One of the first bills I saw passed in this place was Bill C-10, which was under time allocation and everything else. That was a bill to change the law to allow Air Canada to outsource its maintenance work for the aerospace industry out of the country. I have a few more examples, so hopefully I will have a chance to address them in questions and answers.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that when the focus is put on saving jobs instead of protecting people, it is an inappropriate way of phrasing the argument. I think we all understand that from the reading of the law.

I also categorically reject this phrase “get out of jail free”. A deferred prosecution agreement does not suspend a criminal charge. It defers the prosecution if the penalties are not adhered to. In other words, the charge stays and a settlement is negotiated. It is tantamount to a plea bargaining situation in a court, except that the difference here is that the charges are not discharged. They stay on the record. Every single one of the punishments that the party must submit to and admit to because of its guilt is part of the process.

There is no removal of the criminal process. There is no get out of jail free card contemplated in a deferred prosecution agreement. The member opposite has a responsibility to reflect that law properly, not to confuse Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also have a responsibility to represent the views of my constituents, who often find that when big companies and rich executives face criminal charges, whenever they get some kind of plea deal, while it may sound like a lot of money to people who are making $30,000 or $40,000 a year, everybody knows that what they get charged is a drop in a bucket. As far as they are concerned, it is a slap on the wrist, and in some cases they go on, continuing to do exactly the same kind of behaviour.

That is why the integrity regime was brought in. It was brought in to give teeth and meaningful consequences to corporations that, until then, were paying fines and getting slaps on the wrist. It was a decision to try to get serious about this kind of stuff, which we have to do if we want Canadian corporations to go out in the world and conduct business in the way that I think all Canadians expect and in a way that does not put the jobs and lives of the workers on the line.

That was a decision that was made at the corporate board table, and Canadian executives need to know that there is going to be punishments for that. If they know that and they start behaving, then we are not going to have situations where their bad behaviour puts the lives of others in jeopardy.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention from the member for Elmwood—Transcona tonight, and also the intervention, previously, from the member for Spadina—Fort York.

I want to combine the two of them actually, because the member for Spadina—Fort York initially started his intervention giving quite a bit of praise to the former attorney general, her credibility and the work she had done, and believed in what she had done. Then he also stated that he supported his Prime Minister. Then we turn to the member for Elmwood—Transcona, and he is talking about things being unbelievable here tonight.

I want to combine those two interventions, and ask the member for Elmwood—Transcona who is to be believed here. Is it the former attorney general or is it the Prime Minister who denies everything that she said in her testimony, very calmly, very collectively, with credibility and with backup? Who does the member think we should believe?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to get up and speak in this place on behalf of the people in Elmwood—Transcona.

I watched a considerable amount of the testimony yesterday. I went down to the justice committee room because I was interested, and in part because I wanted to get a feel for the credibility of the witness. I have to say I was impressed, not just with her delivery but this is a person who is citing text messages and other documentation, who took copious notes, who is not flying by the seat of her pants on this, at all, but acting as we would expect of a professional of her calibre. It was an interesting contrast to see the Prime Minister at a press conference this morning, just kind of saying that he totally disagreed with her characterization of the events.

What I would like to know is what the Prime Minister can tell us that is different about those conversations. What are the other facts that she missed? He did not say, in such and such a meeting, he actually also said this, or he did not say that, or he said it with this tone. There was no effort at all to try to give Canadians any idea as to what was different about those events, such that we would prefer his account. In fact, we really do not have an account of those events from him, which is part of the problem, and why we want to see him appear at the justice committee and give his account of events so that they can be compared.

In the absence of the Prime Minister providing that, we have a really credible witness who was well prepared and gave a very believable story. I do not see any reason to believe the Prime Minister over her until he offers us a lot more.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for the last five hours tonight, everyone has been expressing their disappointment at having to be here to discuss this. What Canadians really want to know is the truth and they want a process they can believe in that leads us to the truth. We have heard a lot of interpretations of testimony depending on which side of the floor we are sitting.

What is the best way to get at the truth and give Canadians a sense of confidence that the process will lead to the truth?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is pretty obvious. It is to have a full public inquiry. We need someone who is independent to investigate these matters. We have the Ethics Commissioner who is doing some of that, but under a very limited scope. We need an independent investigator who has a broad mandate to chase down all the different leads, corners and twists and turns that this story has taken. Only if we have that are people going to be satisfied that we are getting to the bottom of what is going on and that we are getting the truth.

Trying to distract from the need for a public inquiry to get to that truth, using jobs as an excuse not to get to the bottom of what happened is a mistake and it is a little hard to take from a party that I watched ram through a bill to help outsource the maintenance work of Air Canada workers. It is a party that railroaded workers with back-to-work legislation. They were on a simple rotating strike, going out just a few days a month. The Liberals said that it was a crisis and they had to legislate them back to work.

This is a government that has done damage to workers not just by commission, but by omission, by rolling over when GM said it was going to shut down an award-winning productive plant and move that work out of the country. It is a government that stood silent while a Crown corporation ordered a whole bunch of railcars from a German company to be produced in the United States instead of requiring any percentage of Canadian content.

It is a government that still, after years of promising, has refused to change the legislative regime to protect the pensions of workers when their company has gone bankrupt. I am thinking of Sears, of Stelco workers and others who have watched their pensions disappear.

If we want to talk about jobs, I would be happy to have a whole other debate about jobs and what the government could do to save a lot of jobs and save the pensions of a lot of Canadians. The fact is that it is not happening and these jobs came up to cover what Liberals were doing for their corporate buddies in a board room.