Debates of Feb. 28th, 2019

Alleged Interference in Justice System

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Madam Speaker, the NDP, the third party, initiated an ethics investigation. An ethics investigation allows the commissioner to summon witnesses to give evidence, put people under oath and produce documents. That is a robust mechanism that has the same powers as a court of law. Is that indeed an appropriate mechanism, and is that why they selected that to pursue this investigation?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, given what we have found out about the ongoing, sustained interference and the fact that the new Attorney General's first order of business when he was given that job was to carry through this deal, the hon. member should understand that the Ethics Commissioner does not have the power, but Canadians need that right to know.

What deal was cut with the new Attorney General? That is why we need an independent legal investigation, end of story.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

This evening's debate deals with something that I consider to be fundamental to the way I participate in politics. I became a full-time politician a number of years ago now. I am truly proud of that, because it gives me an opportunity to actually help resolve some of my constituents' problems.

However, it is in my role as a legislator that I rise to speak in this debate. I would like to go on the record as saying that my husband has worked for SNC-Lavalin for almost 30 years now. He too is very proud of his work and of the hundreds of work sites where he and his colleagues left their mark on behalf of this major Canadian engineering firm.

At a legislator, I take to heart my responsibilities of looking out for the best interests of Canada. I also take the respect of our Constitution very seriously, which means that not today and not ever will I take lessons in good governance from the party opposite.

Theirs was the first-ever Commonwealth government to be found in contempt of Parliament. They had a number of laws deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and muzzled and controlled committees to degrees never seen before or since.

Their government was responsible for serious breaches of senators' privileges. It ignored Parliament's responsibilities for 10 years and demonstrated complete disregard for judicial independence. It came very close to destroying our parliamentary democracy.

My mother often says that I have a memory like an elephant. I rarely forget things.

I will not be preached at by Conservative MPs, or by NDP MPs, for that matter.

Canada's governing institutions were strong enough to withstand the repeated assaults of three Harper governments. They will also withstand a fiasco wholly fabricated by an opposition looking for a leg to stand on.

In my opinion, if the Prime Minister's Office tried to get the member for Vancouver Granville to change her mind while she was a member of cabinet, it was completely justified.

No responsible government could ignore the significant impact of legal proceedings against SNC-Lavalin.

We are talking about close to 9,000 jobs across Canada, hundreds of active work sites, countless pensioners, and the construction of the magnificent Samuel de Champlain Bridge, which matters very much to the people of Brossard—Saint-Lambert, who waited so very long for the previous government to break ground on it.

The Prime Minister of Canada is accountable to all Canadians for his decisions and governing choices. He is also charged with making choices that best serve the interests of the largest-possible number of Canadians to the best of his abilities.

Our Prime Minister has an ambitious and forward-looking vision for our country. That means prosperity, stability, fairness, the rule of law and an environment worth leaving to our children. Will mistakes be made on the way? Of course they will. We are all fallible humans.

However, the matter before us this evening has absolutely nothing to do with mistakes. It is a hypocritical bid from an opposition with a very selective and very, very short memory.

The legal arguments in favour of a remediation agreement in the specific case of SNC-Lavalin are also, and most importantly, common sense arguments that will protect thousands of workers.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have to note that despite all the political interference in our judicial system, the Liberals and the Prime Minister stand again and again and say it was right because they were protecting jobs.

Where was this Prime Minister protecting or caring about jobs when we lost 100,000 energy jobs in Alberta? Where was the member for Edmonton Centre standing up for the jobs? What about the member for Edmonton Mill Woods or the member for Calgary Centre? Not once did they stand up for jobs.

Does the current government only care about jobs when it revolves around a company that pays it $100,000 in illegal campaign donations?

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, we were there more than the previous governments were, because we actually invested a lot of political capital in trying to save a pipeline to divert oil sales from the one line to the United States that was giving them $10 a barrel. We tried.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Again I remind members to wait until it is questions and comments time in order to speak.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, the patterns and the culture of the power brokers in this town have not changed all that much, although the faces have changed. We must get to the bottom of it and change the culture.

There is an unfortunate tendency to decide, in powerful organizations like the PCO and the PMO, that if there is a problem in the way, we can find a workaround. If there is a law we do not like, we can skirt it. If there are problems of ethics, well maybe we can write some op-eds. I do not find that the culture has changed from the Harper years until now.

We have an opportunity now to root out a big part of the problem. It is political, but it is also that the senior civil service in this country has become far too political. I would ask that in this House, in this emergency debate, we consider that the testimony of Michael Wernick and the testimony of the former attorney general provide a contrast in which she has all the credibility.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, for the record, is that a question or a comment?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would ask the member to respond, whether it is a question or a comment. That is why it is called “questions and comments”.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was not sure if my colleague wanted an answer from me.

I absolutely agree that we have to always strive to do better as parliamentarians and to improve transparency in our way of legislating and governing.

However, I still do not understand what is wrong with something that was not illegal and was absolutely within the nature of a law that had been passed in the previous budget. I really do not understand why this is a big deal. That is my other comment.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, the crisis here is about whether we believe the Prime Minister or the former attorney general. An appalling statement was made. It had a lot of details regarding all the meetings and the sustained, continuous pressure aimed at changing the mind of our former attorney general on a decision she had already made.

Why is it not possible for the Prime Minister to answer the questions all Canadians would like an answer to?

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I reiterate that nothing illegal was done. The normal pressure of being a high-ranking official in this country also includes some persuasion around different subjects. I do not expect we will find out anything different from what the Ethics Commissioner or the justice committee will find.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House, but I am not doing so to defend the Prime Minister, to speak on behalf of the former attorney general of Canada or because my colleagues keep attacking my government. I am doing so to stand up for my riding. That is what matters here today.

What would each member do if over 9,000 jobs in Canada were in jeopardy? This would be like losing 400 or 500 jobs in my riding. The largest employer in my riding employs 400 people. I have been asked whether I would be prepared to look those workers in the eye and tell them that they are going to lose their jobs, that their families are going to be affected and they are going to lose their pensions because three or four people within the company are corrupt. I can assure the House that I would work incredibly hard to protect those jobs, and I would not apologize for it. I would have no choice, because those workers are the ones who elected me, and that is my role as their member of Parliament.

At the end of the day, I want to ensure that the middle class is doing well, and that is what we are doing as a government. The Prime Minister has always focused on the middle class and those working hard to join it. We have seen that our policies are working. We targeted poverty. We know that our measures have lifted 825,000 families out of poverty. Ultimately, that is what matters.

Today, I know that we are seeking to determine whether there were misunderstandings between the former attorney general and certain employees of the Prime Minister's Office. However, all members of the House, whether or not they are ministers, would do the same thing.

I heard my colleagues opposite speak about Alberta. I know that they would do the same thing to protect jobs in Alberta, as would the four Alberta MPs on this side of the House. That is why we bought a $4.5-billion pipeline. I never saw the former Harper government do that.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to once again remind members that there should not be any heckling or yelling back and forth. When somebody has the floor, they deserve respect. Members may not agree with what is being said, but if they have questions and comments, they will be able to raise them during the time for questions and comments.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is not the first time I have heard dogs yapping in this place.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

That type of comment is not helpful. I appreciate you withdrawing your comment, but please choose your words wisely.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I also want to talk about transparency.

Before the 2011 election, the government had several ministers who are still here on the other side of the House. The Conservative government told Canadians not to worry because the fighter jets would cost $10 billion. What did the previous government do to be transparent on that issue? It did not do anything special in terms of waiving cabinet confidentiality. It never waived solicitor-client privilege. It never did those things. Canadians had to wait for the Auditor General to table a report to learn the truth.

The Prime Minister has done something unprecedented, in recent history, by waiving cabinet confidentiality to allow the former attorney general to testify before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Opposition members are still refusing to recognize that.

Last week, they wanted to hear from the former attorney general. She had the opportunity to speak before the committee, and that is what is important. That is the difference between us and the official opposition.

I want to get into the issue of the integrity framework, because it is an important issue. We have been attacked again by the opposition, which is saying that somehow we are conspiring with one company to change the integrity framework.

I have worked on the integrity framework, and we often talked about the 10-year ban on companies being allowed to bid for government contracts. I know this policy has continuously changed since 2012. I recall when the government of the day was the Harper government, and now a lot of MPs, including former cabinet ministers, now sit on the other side. At the time, the government of the day recognized that if affiliates were caught because of corrupt practices in other countries, employees in Canada should not pay the price because of that.

This is exactly what is at issue. The issue is whether employees, pensioners and shareholders pay the price because of a few corrupt individuals in a company.

I go back to my role as an MP. I would fight for those jobs any day.

Finally, I want to talk about the testimony yesterday.

This was not a question asked by members on this side of the House and it was not a question asked by the official opposition; it was a question asked by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He asked the former attorney general whether there was any illegal activity conducted in this activity, and she said no, absolutely not.

The Leader of the Opposition stood up yesterday at seven o'clock and did a big press release. He talked about interfering in the judicial process, while at the same time directing the police to investigate this particular issue, knowing full well that the former attorney general said that there was no criminal activity.

I will end my speech here, but any MP should fight for jobs. If those MPs on the other side will not fight for jobs, people can rest assured that on this side of the House, this Prime Minister and government will always fight for jobs.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his somewhat convoluted speech.

I would like to know what he thinks of the tweet posted yesterday by the member for Brossard—Saint-Lambert, who spoke just before he did. In response to a tweet from Patrice Roy, from Radio-Canada's Téléjournal, she said, “Just because she says it does not make it true. I am sorry, but part of being an adult is accepting that major responsibilities come with 'pressure' that is entirely legitimate.”

Does my colleague, who is so pure and innocent, accept this kind of public comment?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for calling me pure and innocent. My mother would beg to differ.

Let me come back to the important matters. I will not comment on what a colleague said in a tweet. I will comment on the process that allows us to get to the truth. The opposition members often say that they want to get to the truth, but they immediately start pointing fingers before even hearing all the testimony of the people concerned.

Today, we heard the former principal secretary say that he wants to appear before the justice committee. Before commenting on this story and pointing the finger at everyone, I would like to know if we are ready to hear the truth. Before we can get to the truth, we have to hear all the testimony. That is how things work in a parliamentary system.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think we would all agree that the minister of justice is part of cabinet decision-making within the government. I also think that everyone in the House would agree that the Attorney General often needs to play the role of an independent arbiter.

I would ask the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell what he thinks about the idea of the portfolios of the minister of justice and the Attorney General being assigned to different people in order to strengthen the independence of the Attorney General.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will wait for the justice committee, which is looking at that idea. I know that it is going to come out with recommendations.

The U.K. has a system that completely separates the Attorney General and the justice minister. I do not think it is a terrible idea, but I will let the justice committee come out with some particular recommendations. Perhaps, yes, it is something we should look at.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with our colleague's suggestion that we should listen to witnesses at the justice committee. I remind members that, at the very beginning, we proposed a comprehensive list of witnesses we wanted to hear from. The list was completely rejected. Now, everything is happening bit by bit. As soon as one revelation comes out, another witness is called. One little revelation, and another person is called to testify.

Does my colleague agree that the next witness who should be invited to the justice committee is the Prime Minister himself? He should testify and answer all the questions we want to ask.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would agree if we were talking about former Prime Minister Harper, because he never spoke to the media. Our Prime Minister always talks to the media and has always answered the media's question.

I do not want to tell the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights what it should do. My colleague sits with me on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. He surely would not agree with my telling the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights what it should do. We should let the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights do its job. If, at some point, there are other questions, we will see what happens.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, it really is no pleasure to rise this evening in this emergency debate. I never would have thought to have heard the very disturbing testimony of our former attorney general.

I was there observing her in person as she came before the justice committee. Her testimony was disturbing and, frankly, explosive. It was compelling, and I have no doubt that she was telling the truth throughout. She was clear and unambiguous. She was methodical. She never wavered.

She painted a picture about the Prime Minister and his PMO. It is a pretty ugly one, a pretty sad one. We have a Prime Minister and his top officials who, at his direction, repeatedly put political considerations ahead of the rule of law. We have a Prime Minister who repeatedly attempted to obstruct justice through his top officials. We have a Prime Minister who has lost the moral authority to govern. If the Prime Minister had any honour—and I am not sure he does have any honour—he would do the right thing and resign.

It was truly astounding to learn of the concerted, coordinated campaign directed by the Prime Minister to obstruct justice. That is what happened. Let us not kid ourselves. Let us not dismiss the gravity of what has happened here.

When our former attorney general met with the Prime Minister on September 17, he raised the SNC-Lavalin issue immediately. Fair enough. She, as Canada's Attorney General, explained to him that she had made a decision and that she would not be overturning the decision of the director of public prosecutions. She also advised the Prime Minister of her role as Attorney General and the independence of the office of the Attorney General and the independence of that office in terms of her prosecutorial discretion.

However, instead of respecting his Attorney General, instead of respecting the independence of her office, the Prime Minister could not accept the answer “no”.

I will just say now that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

The Prime Minister instead said that we need to find a solution for SNC-Lavalin—in other words, politically interfere—for certain friends who are connected in high places in the Liberal Party.

Then what happened was a coordinated campaign, with 10 meetings and 10 phone calls, involving the highest officials in this government: the Prime Minister himself, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, the Prime Minister's principal secretary, the Prime Minister's chief Quebec adviser and the Clerk of the Privy Council, among others. What took place over a four-month period was a concerted effort to try to change the former attorney general's mind, a concerted effort to alter the course of justice.

Not only is that highly inappropriate, it may very well be a criminal offence, because it smells of obstruction of justice, which is to, in any way, alter the course of justice, pursuant to section 139 of the Criminal Code.

I have been astounded that Liberal members opposite have had the audacity, and have been so shameless, to stand in their places and claim, with straight faces, that these discussions were all about doing what was in the public interest. Based on the evidence of the former attorney general, among the things that were discussed in an effort to pressure or coerce her to obstruct justice were included the Quebec election, which I am sure is in the public interest; the fact that the Prime Minister is from Montreal, which is really consistent with the public interest; the value of SNC-Lavalin shares; and that SNC-Lavalin's counsel is not a shrinking violet, as the Clerk of the Privy Council told her. Is that in the public interest?

Gerald Butts told the former attorney general that “there is no solution here that does not involve some interference.” Does that sound like the public interest? How about Katie Telford? She said, “We don't want to debate legalities anymore.”

None of those matters in any way have anything to do with the public interest. They are not factors that legitimately could be considered by the former attorney general in the exercise of her prosecutorial discretion when taking into account the public interest.

What those statements also demonstrate is the total lack of respect for the rule of law by this Prime Minister, by his chief of staff, by his principal secretary, by the Clerk of the Privy Council and others. They knew that what they were doing was wrong. They knew that what they were doing crossed the line. However, they did not care, because they thought they could get away with it. They thought they were too powerful to obey the law. They thought they would never be caught. They thought that the former attorney general would succumb to the pressure, because in addition to all these totally inappropriate considerations, she was repeatedly threatened that she would be fired. Boy, did they ever underestimate the former attorney general.

The Clerk of the Privy Council called her immediately after speaking with the Prime Minister, what a coincidence, and threatened her not once, not twice, but three times and told her that the Prime Minister was going to get his way and that there were problems with the Prime Minister not being on the same page as the attorney general. When she did not cave, the Prime Minister, at the very first opportunity, fired her as the Attorney General, all because she would not succumb to the pressure, all because she had too much integrity to break the law.

We have a Prime Minister who has a lot, therefore, to answer. It is very clear that all along, he was up to his eyeballs in this sordid affair. This Prime Minister has repeatedly been untruthful. He has repeatedly failed to come clean with the facts. He has repeatedly tried to cover this up. Therefore, he needs to come before the justice committee, under oath, and answer the questions Canadians so desperately deserve to have answered. Before he does it, he should resign.