Debates of March 18th, 2019

Justice and Human Rights

[Arif Virani]

Madam Speaker, I am painfully aware of the fact that we are debating a subamendment, but I thank the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for his desire to clarify the record. If he needs to rise on another point of order, I am sure he will feel free to do so.

The point is that the member for Timmins—James Bay stood in the House just moments ago and asked a question of the member who just rose. That question was whether what he sought to do would jeopardize the independence of the director of public prosecutions. Therefore, let us unpack that.

The notion of the director of public prosecutions, if memory serves, was created around 2004 or 2006 specifically to address the need to ensure there was a depoliticization and an arm's-length nature of important matters and decisions that were taken with respect to prosecutions in the country. That is an important feature. It is hallmarked in the rule of law and the constitutional precepts that the member opposite has raised on numerous occasions in this very House.

By bringing that individual before the committee, the member for Timmins—James Bay raises an important point of whether that might be, unwittingly or de facto, politicizing the very exercise and decision-making power of that very individual. I put that to the House for the purposes of returning to this debate.

What is important to outline is that when we talk about the independence of the director of public prosecutions, a critically important role, it is a role that has been created for many reasons and a role that we need to jealously protect and safeguard.

I find it a bit ironic as well, as a prefatory comment to the comments I will be making, that the official opposition is seeking to direct the committees with respect to their work. We know from the record that when the official opposition was in power, which has been alluded to on numerous occasions by the government House leader, it reduced the resources provided to committees and took parliamentary secretaries like myself and inserted them completely within the committee structure and in so doing, ensured they served almost as de facto whips on committees.

What we did, conversely, was campaign on a different role for parliamentary secretaries and a different role for committees. We fulfilled that campaign commitment by providing better resources to committees and by ensuring that parliamentary secretaries like myself and 34 of my colleagues would not have a vote, for example, at committee. Those are important features that enhance the very committee process that the members opposite say we are somehow impugning.

Perhaps most egregious, and Canadians need to be reminded of this, is that on a day when the official opposition seeks to somehow take the side of the committee process, that is the same party that, when in power, circulated a memo to all committee chairs about how to deliberately obstruct committee processes to better manage the committees to do the Conservative Party's bidding. Those are facts and those facts are important so people understand how perhaps ironic and incredulous I find the position currently being taken by the members opposite.

Let us now look at the work the committees have been doing thus far. Official opposition members who sit on the justice committee, on pretty much every occasion I have seen when a justice bill is being debated in the House, have said it has worked in an amazingly harmonious and consensual manner. They have gone to great lengths to point out on many occasions the work of the member for Mount Royal, as chair, who has always sought to produce consensus-based, multi-party reports and have a consensus-based model and approach toward the committee deliberations, which is very important to note. It happened again earlier today, for Canadians watching or consulting Hansard.

Earlier today, we were debating Bill C-84 and the member for St. Albert—Edmonton talked about the member for Mount Royal, his studious chairmanship of that committee and his efforts to build consensus on numerous occasions. At the same time, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton reflected on the fact that he proposed an amendment to Bill C-84. What we did, like any logical government that is taking a non-partisan approach to committees should do and one that is empowering committees to do their work should do, we accepted that amendment, as we have done on other occasions on other bills, such as Bill C-75, the Criminal Code review amendment.

Again, those are prefatory comments about how committee structures operate and committees work. It is very important for people to understand that the justice committee stands out as an example of the great work committees can do on a multi-party basis. It stands out as an example where committees are fulfilling that kind of role.

In this context, what have we heard from the justice committee? We had people questioning their desire to engage in a discussion about the issues. We had people perhaps being surprised that the justice committee was very willing to hear from people.

The justice committee heard from the former attorney general, the current Attorney General of Canada and the deputy attorney general. It heard from the former principal secretary to the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council. I will pause there to particularly acknowledge his 37 or 38 years of non-partisan service to the people of Canada and the Government of Canada and recognize that body of work.

It also heard from important experts and legal academics. That is something that I will confess tickles my fancy, as a lawyer who came here after 15 years of practice in human rights and constitutional law. It heard from people talking about the constitutional precepts that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills is regularly invoking here. The member for, I believe Victoria, from the New Democratic Party, who is the vice-chair of the justice committee, has also referred to it on numerous occasions. They have invoked concepts about what we call the Shawcross doctrine, which has been invoked so many times that people are starting to develop a familiarity about it. They have been talking about the importance of the role of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, and the fused notion that we have here in Canada, both federally and at every provincial level.

They have also talked, by comparison, about how things operate in Britain. For example, in Britain, there is a divorced role. Each entity is fulfilled by different individuals, which helps to address or alleviate some of the concerns that have been expressed here. That is an important issue. It came up today once again in question period.

These issues are being discussed and entered into the public debate, which is a very good thing. It is a hallmark of the committees and Parliament doing their work, which is an important precept. The Canadians who are watching right now should understand that these issues have all been advanced because the committee has been allowed to do its work.

What has the committee learned or what has come out of the committee process? Let us go there for a moment.

A motion was raised today by the member opposite, when we were meant to be debating Bill C-92, child welfare legislation, which would take indigenous kids out of the child welfare system and keep them in and among indigenous families and communities. Instead, they wanted to raise the issue of committee structure and to compel the reappearance of Ms. Roussel at the committee. However, in understanding our position on that, the members opposite need to understand what has already been heard at committee. What I am hearing and learning from reviewing the materials and watching the proceedings is this.

We heard testimony that the former attorney general stated that the Prime Minister told her this was her decision to take. We heard her state on the record that it is appropriate to discuss job impacts. We heard her say that nothing occurred that was unlawful. In response to a question by the leader of the Green Party, she said that nothing that occurred was criminal. We heard her say that she was never directed. We heard her state that the state of our institutions, the rule of law and the independence of the legal process, are intact.

I want to go to a couple of quotes that arose during the context of the proceedings to illustrate this point. The former attorney general herself stated this at the very committee that the members opposite are impugning. She said, “I do not want members of this committee or Canadians to think that the integrity of our institutions has somehow evaporated. The integrity of our justice system, the integrity of the director of public prosecutions and prosecutors, is intact.”

This position on this issue of the rule of law, which is an important point, has been raised by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills on numerous occasions in the context of this debate. It was also raised in the context of Mr. Wernick's testimony, when he said, “I think Canadians should feel assured that they work in a democracy under the rule of law.”

In the same exchange with the member for Willowdale, Mr. Wernick went on to state, “I think Canadians need to be assured that their police and investigators, with the powers of the state, operate independently, and that the prosecution service, the state charging people with offences, is completely independent. There is a legislative and statutory shield around that, which demonstrably is working...”

That echoes exactly what we heard from the member for Timmins—James Bay. It also echoes what we heard from communications that have been put out by the director of public prosecutions. That office has gone to pains and at length to reassure Canadians that it has not been influenced in this case, nor has it been influenced in any other case with respect to how it conducts prosecutions. That is a critically important point to raise in the context of contemplations by the members opposite about recalling Madame Roussel before the committee.

In the end, what we heard at that committee was that the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way. What we have also heard, and what we know, is that the rule of law has remained intact. Those are critical points to be underscored at this juncture.

I want to return to what was raised by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton this afternoon when he first raised the motion about the issue of appropriate versus inappropriate discussion points with respect to the remediation agreement regime. I want to read this into the record so that it is crystal clear for Canadians. The remediation agreement regime exists in the Criminal Code. It is entrenched in the Criminal Code of Canada, based on amendments that were made last year.

The remediation agreement regime was studied at length in Canada-wide consultations. Following that study, it was proposed in legislation. That legislation was then studied by the finance committee and the justice committee of the House of Commons as well as a Senate committee. That remediation regime was then enacted into law and fully gazetted in an open and transparent manner to the public.

As has been stated on different occasions in the context of debates that we have been having over the past five or six weeks, the remediation agreement regime exists in five member countries of the G7. Those include the United States, Britain, France, Japan and now Canada. What we are doing by invoking a remediation agreement regime is harmonizing Canadian law with the laws of many other western democratic nations, particularly many other western democratic nations with whom we have trading relationships, which is an important point.

What is misunderstood here is this notion of what the remediation agreement concept invokes, or more specifically what it involves. There have been active discussions about whether the Prime Minister invoking the necessity and propriety of discussing jobs and job impacts was in fact appropriate. The position of Her Majesty's official opposition, articulated even earlier this afternoon, is that somehow that was inappropriate.

I want to read this into the record so that is is absolutely crystal clear. This is how one would conduct this matter if we were debating it in a much more rigorous way in a court of law. One would look to the statute for guidance.

Section 715.31 of the Criminal Code of Canada says:

The purpose of this Part is to establish a remediation agreement regime that is applicable to organizations alleged to have committed an offence and that has the following objectives:

It then lists six objectives:

(a) to denounce an organization’s wrongdoing and the harm that the wrongdoing has caused to victims or to the community;

(b) to hold the organization accountable for its wrongdoing through effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties;

That is an important point, because much has been made by members opposite about there being no accountability if a remediation agreement even enters the discussion points.

Paragraph 715.31(c) of the Criminal Code states:

to contribute to respect for the law by imposing an obligation on the organization to put in place corrective measures and promote a compliance culture;

That objective is clearly redressing the circumstances or the harm or the organizational capacity that allowed such a problem to occur. The fourth objective is as follows:

(d) to encourage voluntary disclosure of the wrongdoing;

That is to ensure that corporate actors or other actors come forward on a voluntary basis. The fifth point for the remediation agreement regime is this:

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community;

Again, that is addressing the victims. We have repeatedly heard invocations about the harms that has occurred in the context of SNC-Lavalin or other corporate actors in the context of remediation agreement regimes. What the statute itself talks about is ensuring that there are reparations for harm done to victims. That is important.

However, the last point is the most important point. It addresses precisely what has been raised by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton in his comments, which is why government members or the Prime Minister are even talking about jobs. Well, here is why, and, again, I am reading the Criminal Code of Canada, subsection 715.31(f), which says that the purpose of a remediation agreement regime is as follows:

to reduce the negative consequences of the wrongdoing for persons—employees, customers, pensioners and others—who did not engage in the wrongdoing, while holding responsible those individuals who did engage in that wrongdoing.

I will simplify that for the viewers. A remediation agreement is meant to ensure that the people who make decisions at a corporation are held accountable because they committed the wrongdoing, but those who are on the front lines, such as people who work on the assembly lines, answer the phone, stock the water cooler, are not held responsible, nor are people who no longer work at the company because they are pensioners. That is the point of a remediation agreement, which is why it has taken hold in now five member countries of the G7. It is why it has been adopted into law in Canada. It is important. The fundamental priority of any government is to keep its citizens safe and to promote their economic stability and security. That is a critical component.

These are important aspects, and I raise them today because it shows that concepts such as these need to be understood better. We can already understand them better by looking at the committee track record thus far. It has been a robust one. It has heard from a number of witnesses. That committee work is continuing as it should, in a manner that has been forthright and transparent.

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

Madam Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice cited part of the applicable section of the Criminal Code, but he neglected to mention the key one, which is under subsection 715.32(3). It states:

if the organization is alleged to have committed an offence under...the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, the prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest....

That is the applicable section, which is precisely what the Prime Minister sought to do and is why the OECD has sounded the alarm of concern.

With respect to the factors that the hon. parliamentary secretary cited, those are factors that were pursuant to the legislation within the purview of the director of public prosecutions. The director of public prosecutions had looked at the facts, applied the law and made a decision not to intervene, and the Prime Minister refused to accept it. He tried to do an end run to alter the course of justice, to obstruct justice.

The parliamentary secretary stated that the former attorney general has come to committee. Yes, that is true, but as the former attorney general has stated, the order in council “falls short of what is required”.

Why will the government simply not allow her to speak to all of the matters? Why will the government not let her speak?

[Seamus O'Regan]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order to table the government's response to Order Paper Questions Nos. 2149 and 2191.

[Arif Virani]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for St. Albert—Edmonton for his contributions today and all days on the justice committee. We do not often see eye to eye on matters of policy, but I appreciate his robust contributions at the committee and in this chamber.

In terms of the national economic interest, the member is absolutely correct. There is a provision, which he has spoken about, subsection 715.32(3) of the Criminal Code, under “Factors not to consider”. It says that:

the prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest, the potential effect on relations with a state other than Canada...

What is being targeted by that phrase is consideration about dual-nation relationships. In the context where there are allegations that relate to bribery of a foreign official, we are not meant to consider the international relationship or the economic interests of the particular source or destination country. This was made clear in Mr. Wernick's testimony before the committee on two occasions. It is a different aspect of the issue, but it is a valid point that is rightfully raised by the member opposite. However, I would reiterate that the purpose provisions outline not only the strict penalties, accountability and that the strict admission of responsibility needs to be done, but also the fact that jobs and pension concerns are perfectly legitimate.

Second, I would point out that the member again said that the Prime Minister refused to accept something, which is incorrect—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The member's answer is a bit long and I do have other questions and comments. Maybe he could add it to the next answer.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Madam Speaker, that entire speech gave us a very good example of everything that is wrong with the Liberal defence. It is as if they think if they continue to talk about how great the deferred public prosecution is, we will understand why the former attorney general was not good enough at her job.

The former attorney general told the government that this was a matter of law, that once the independent director of public prosecutions determined that SNC-Lavalin was not eligible for a deferred prosecution agreement, that is when the interference began. They are continuing this process today. They are continuing to tell Canadians that it was perfectly acceptable because they had a law. The problem is that the director of public prosecutions decided that the law did not apply to SNC-Lavalin. That is the fundamental question.

My hon. colleague said that no laws have been broken. Not yet, but the former attorney general said that she understood she was being removed because she would not go along with the deferred public prosecution. She said the first order of business for the new Attorney General was the deferred public prosecution agreement. He has promoted it and the Liberals continue to promote it.

I would ask my hon. colleague if the government is now still attempting to go with the deferred public prosecution agreement, after the director has decided that SNC-Lavalin is not eligible. That would be the clear reason why the government removed the former attorney general. If the government is going to push for the deferred public prosecution agreement, it would certainly draw the attention of the OECD and probably the RCMP for interference in the independence of the Public Prosecution Service.

[Arif Virani]

Madam Speaker, in response to both the member for St. Albert—Edmonton and the member for Timmins—James Bay, the important point that needs to be clear on the record for Canadians is that it was stated that the Prime Minister refused to accept the position of the former attorney general. That is categorically not the case. The evidence has shown that the Prime Minister indicated that the decision was for the former attorney general to take, and she confirmed that in her own testimony. That is an important point.

The member for Timmins—James Bay said that it is a matter of law. I want to clarify for the record that directives have been done in terms of classes of litigation. Directives have occurred recently for HIV non-disclosure and also for indigenous litigation. Those directives were issued even once litigation was under way.

What I would reiterate for people to understand, including the member opposite, is that decisions are made about prosecutions on an ongoing basis until a sentence is determined. That happens all the time in the to-and-fro of a courtroom process. By way of example, there is the issue of the way a criminal trial unfolds. If it is meant to be a five-day trial and pursuing one type of sentence, as the evidence unfolds on the stand, decisions are made, agreements are struck to change penalties that are being sought, etc. This is a well-known feature of Canadian criminal law and has been for literally centuries. It is something that is well entrenched in terms of how prosecutions are handled.

I hope that helps to address the concerns of the member for Timmins—James Bay in terms of the notion of what directives are and when they are applied.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the questions that I have posed to members opposite in regard to the idea that we have had this report for almost a year. I think it was last June or July when it was concurred in or brought to the House. The Conservatives have chosen today to bring forward the motion, a day when we were supposed to debate an important piece of legislation dealing with child welfare, our system and reforms, which has been much anticipated by indigenous communities.

I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts. Maybe he could tell us why he believes the Conservatives are moving this motion today of all days.

[Arif Virani]

Madam Speaker, I will confess that I do find it a bit concerning that we are doing this on a day when we have the Minister of Indigenous Services in the House and are meant to be addressing Bill C-92, regarding something that the member for Timmins—James Bay always advocates in the House with vigour, as he should, in terms of indigenous reconciliation and how fundamental it is as a priority.

Instead of working on how to get indigenous children out of the child welfare system and back in their communities, ensuring that their language, culture and customs are preserved, we are discussing a report that was tabled almost a year ago, a report that all members of the justice committee concurred in at the time. The Conservatives are using this as a means of further elaborating on the issue of SNC-Lavalin. I find that very concerning in terms of the business of the chamber.

People have been asking what the most fundamental important priority is. I would say it is the security of Canadians. It is economic security, but the most fundamental relationship for any government of any stripe has to be its relationship with indigenous peoples.

We have the opportunity this afternoon to get on with the important business of passing legislation that could be era defining, in terms of assisting children in indigenous communities from coast to coast to coast. My position is that we should be getting on with that very issue.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary is wrong. What we were supposed to be debating today in the House of Commons was the final supply day motion, but the government House leader took away that final opposition day motion and moved it, because the Liberal government was afraid to debate the fundamental rule of law issues associated with the SNC-Lavalin affair.

Why is the Liberal government still preventing the former attorney general from speaking?

[Arif Virani]

Madam Speaker, I am not going to speculate about discussions that I am not party to with respect to the government House leader and the negotiations that take place. I will confess that after three and a half years, I still find it confusing as to what happens on any given day.

That being said, we are talking today, right now, as we have been talking for several weeks now, about the rule of law and important constitutional principles. I relish these kinds of discussions. What I do think, and I remain steadfast in this, is that on a day when we are meant to be addressing indigenous reconciliation in a very meaningful and significant way, we should do just that.

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

Madam Speaker, I am honoured, as always, to rise to speak on behalf of the people of Timmins—James Bay. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Victoria, British Columbia, which is a beautiful community somewhere west of Thunder Bay, I am told.

I want to begin with the fact that we are dealing with an ongoing crisis created by the Prime Minister through interference by his office to help some very powerful corporate interests through the use of lobbyists and the use of very powerful people like Kevin Lynch, who could call the Clerk of the Privy Council from his role as chair at SNC-Lavalin and say, “We want the public prosecution to back off.”

That is not how the rule of law is supposed to be exercised in Canada. That is the fundamental issue. We have come full circle, back to the worst of the cronyism of the Chrétien-Martin days, to “who you know in the PMO”. This crisis is from interfering in a bribery corruption scandal in Libya with SNC-Lavalin, which had been barred by the World Bank for 10 years for numerous consistent violations of the law in countries like Cambodia, with allegations in Algeria, allegations in country after country. The company was barred by the World Bank. It is a company that we are told used to make sure that their bribes were recorded so that it could get tax deductions in Canada. It is a company that is very tied to the Prime Minister.

The issue before us today is the question of the interference by the Prime Minister's Office in the work of the director of public prosecutions, and that undermines the rule of law. What has that meant? It has meant that we have had five former attorneys general from across Canada call on the RCMP for an investigation into what they call a constitutional crisis. Former Liberal attorney general Michael Bryant said that he had never seen interference as brazen and reckless as the Liberal government's interference that created this constitutional crisis.

We have lost the former attorney general from cabinet. We have seen the resignation of the former president of the Treasury Board, who spoke about her constitutional obligations to the people of Canada and that she had to step down because she had lost confidence in the Prime Minister.

Today, we saw the resignation of the Clerk of the Privy Council. This is unprecedented in the history of Canada. The Clerk of the Privy Council has had to resign because what we saw from his testimony was that he had become a clear political actor, working at the behest of the Prime Minister to interfere with the work of the director of public prosecutions.

The first day of testimony by the former attorney general was very shocking to many Canadians, because we never get to see how decisions are made behind the scenes. She said that the reasons they were trying to interfere with the SNC-Lavalin prosecution was, number one, there was a Quebec election coming; number two, it was going to affect share prices; and number three, there was a board meeting and they had to get back to the chair of the board as quickly as possibly to reassure him. None of these are reasons for a public prosecution in a credible company to be stopped and backed off.

We also saw the really shocking testimony from the former attorney general that the Prime Minister said that he needed action because he was “the MP for Papineau”. He was putting his own personal electoral interests ahead of the law of Canada. She said that the director of public prosecutions had determined that SNC-Lavalin was not eligible for the deferred public prosecution agreement, which had been handwritten for SNC-Lavalin and slipped into an omnibus bill. Even though it had been handwritten for SNC-Lavalin, it still was not eligible for it.

Then we had the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mathieu Bouchard and Elder Marques reach out to her to say they wanted to do an informal reach-around to talk to the director of public prosecutions. That is interference and obstruction in the rule of law. That was done from the Prime Minister's Office, with the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Gerry Butts, telling the former attorney general, when she was warning him about interference, that they would not get through this without interference.

He did not like the law because it was a Stephen Harper law. I have been on the record many times saying that I do not like very much that Stephen Harper did. However, when a law is the law and one does not like the law, one repeals it. One does not go around behind the scenes because one is trying to help Liberal friends. That is undermining the rule of law.

Then we have Katie Telford, who is still in the Prime Minister's Office and who told the former attorney general's staff that the PMO was not interested in legalities. How can someone run a government when the key people around the Prime Minister do not give a darn about the rule of law?

The former attorney general talked about meeting with Michael Wernick. Michael Wernick resigned today, and I think it was good for the people of Canada that Mr. Wernick resigned, because he had become a political actor and compromised his role.

I had asked the former attorney general if he had threatened her in that December 19 meeting. She responded that he did not threaten her once but threatened her three times.

I asked Mr. Wernick about the nature of those threats, and he said that he could not remember; he was not wearing a wire. We are talking about the Government of Canada, not a Sopranos episode.

This is all swirling around the Prime Minister's Office. A belief I still see from the people in that office today is that they do not understand why people are upset. It is as though helping Liberal friends is how they do business, and if the law has to be broken, well, that is how it is done. They do not seem to understand that they have damaged their credibility even to the point that the OECD anti-bribery unit is now investigating Canada. It is not just a black mark for the Prime Minister's credibility but a black mark for Canada. A company can be charged internationally with bribery, corruption, paying for prostitutes for Gadhafi's son, building prisons and being involved in that whole torture regime, but then all these people have to do is come back and call in to the Prime Minister's Office and it will make it go away.

No wonder the OECD said that all the alarm bells are sounding. We should say that all the alarm bells are sounding for Canadians. We have to do justice better than this in this country. We have to respect the independent role of the Public Prosecution Service.

We still see the Prime Minister's Office attempting to get around this. The new Attorney General was put in and the former attorney general said that his first order of business was going to be SNC-Lavalin. The PMO is still talking about supposed new evidence that allows it to cut a deal and help its friends at SNC-Lavalin despite the fact that this has completely damaged the Prime Minister's credibility on reconciliation and completely damaged his credibility as a so-called feminist prime minister and completely damaged his reputation on accountability, but he still has to deliver for the friends of the Liberal Party.

That is the toxic, corrosive power of the 1%, and it is what is driving the Prime Minister's agenda into the ground.

Today the Prime Minister announced a solution to this crisis. He has ignored calls for an independent inquiry. What the Prime Minister sees an independent inquiry is to find a Liberal out doing the hustings and raising cash for the Liberal Party, a Liberal who was involved in Adscam in the worst days of sponsorship, and bring someone back from the sponsorship scandal who is doing fundraising for the Liberal Party to look at whether Liberals broke the law on the independence of the Public Prosecution Service in order to help Liberal friends. That is so politically toxic.

I almost feel we should call Gerry Butts back just to try to help the Prime Minister, the MP forPapineau, get out of this hole that he keeps digging. Liberals do not seem to understand that if they keep going back to that toxic partisan Liberal well, keep going back to the rum-bottle politics with which they have run business on the banks of the Rideau for the last 150 years, keep going back to that toxic relationship of insider friends, it is going to continue to burn the Prime Minister.

I urge the Prime Minister to do the right thing and let the former attorney general speak. I urge him to remove all the hand puppets on the justice committee who are interfering, to stop hiding and come clean with Canadians and tell us just how far he is willing to go in order to help his friends at SNC-Lavalin, even if it means undermining the rule of law in Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, few inside the House are better at political rhetoric than the member opposite who just delivered his comments. He tries to give so many false impressions.

If the member wants to talk about who the Prime Minister and the government have been standing up for in this process, while respecting the law throughout, it is in fact the thousands of workers, the individuals who are receiving pensions and are still working.

Since the very beginning, we have seen the unholy alliance of the NDP and Conservatives bring their political attacks on the Prime Minister personally and on other ministers. Consistently they do that. Now the member opposite is once again ramping up the rhetoric, when in fact there is a process being followed.

Does the member not recognize the independent office of the Ethics Commissioner, which is looking into the matter? Why does the member not wait to see what it has to say, as opposed to continuing to ramp up something that is nowhere nearly as big a story as he has created in his imagination?

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

Madam Speaker, I do not even know where to begin. Let us put aside the fact that the Ethics Commissioner is on long-term sick leave and is unable to finish what is a very narrow inquiry.

Let us talk about the notion that the Liberals care about jobs. Oh, my God. When Sears workers were having their pensions ripped off, the Liberals did not care about them because the Liberals were looking after the family business, Morneau Shepell. That is who they looked after.

We never heard once in the testimony that they were talking about jobs; they were talking about share prices. They were talking about the CEOs' meeting. They were talking about where the headquarters were going to be. That is what they were talking about.

There is the fact that the President of the Treasury Board has resigned because she has lost confidence over the ethics of the Prime Minister. There is the fact that the former attorney general is being silenced, the fact that the Clerk of the Privy Council has resigned, the fact that OECD is investigating Canada for breaches of its anti-bribery convention and the fact that five former attorneys general are asking for an RCMP investigation. The Liberals think this is okay. To them, it is business as usual, because they are helping their friends. That is why they were thrown out under the sponsorship scandal, and if they continue, they are going to be going down that road again.

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

Madam Speaker, the Liberals have repeatedly stated that the Prime Minister conveyed to the former attorney general that it was her decision and her decision alone to make. When Gerald Butts appeared before the justice committee, he tried to sanitize the wrongdoing and misdeeds of the Prime Minister and his top officials by saying that the only thing they were conveying to the former attorney general was the need to get an outside opinion.

Why would there be a need for an outside opinion unless the former attorney general had made a decision that the Prime Minister did not like? Could the member for Timmins—James Bay speak to that?

The evidence, based on what the former attorney general said and based on the efforts of Mr. Butts to try to sanitize the wrongdoing, confirms that there was a clear effort to alter the course of justice, as directed by the Prime Minister.

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

Madam Speaker, if we listen to Gerry Butts, this is all like an episode of Friends. If he had only been a bit more sensitive before she slammed the door, we never would have had to deal with this.

When she talked about the political interference in the independence of the public prosecution, she said people kept telling her that they did not like her answer and that they would find someone who could tell her, someone who is smarter. Then Katie Telford said she would find some people to write some editorials, and they did. Once the former attorney general spoke up, the Liberals went to Sheila Copps.

The Liberals have to do better than this. Gerry Butts cannot come to committee and claim that he did not know, until she gave testimony, that a decision had been made. It shows us what Liberals think of independent, strong women in their own cabinet who say to back off when they have made a decision, and do so month after month, trying to push back. We still see today that the Liberals want to find someone else to agree with them so that they will be able to intervene and undermine the rule of law by changing the director of public prosecution's role and telling her to back off. That is not acceptable.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate following my friend from Timmins—James Bay, because he has channelled the anger that many Canadians have.

Today I come to this discussion more in sadness than anything, and I will explain why.

I was at the committee that chose Kathleen Roussel as the director of public prosecutions. As members may know, under section 4 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, there is ability, I think appropriately, for members of Parliament from all recognized political parties to be involved in the selection process, and I was very pleased to be part of the group that chose her for that role. I do not know her, but over the last couple of weeks I have acquired enormous respect for her integrity. I think she has proven to Canadians that she is the right person for that job.

I raise that point because technically, of course, this is a concurrence motion in respect of her appointment, and I want to say that. Also, under her constituent statute, section 10 allows for an attorney general to take over a specific prosecution if he or she wishes, and section 15 allows that as well at a later time. If that is done, it has to be put in the Canada Gazette and the Canadian public gets to know that it has been done. I am happy to say it has not been done, although there were efforts made at the highest level of this country to cause that to be done, and to her everlasting credit, the former attorney general said no. She said no because the buck stops with the attorney general when it comes to decisions on criminal prosecution in our system. Even that has been constrained, as I said, by the Director of Public Prosecutions Act in the way that I have just described.

I come in sadness today because the Liberals have been trying to change the channel on this story for months. They started by saying that there is nothing here, that she was still in cabinet, until she was not, and then it was a different story. Then it was Scott Brison's fault, and then it was there is nothing to see here. I do not even know where the bouncing ball stops, but Canadians have to have serious concerns about this issue.

The former well-respected President of the Treasury Board left the employ of the Canadian public and said, in doing so, “Sadly, I have lost confidence in how the government has dealt with this matter and in how it has responded to the issues raised.” She talked of the ethical responsibilities and constitutional obligations that she has as a member of cabinet.

Any Canadian who watched the testimony of the former attorney general would know, because of the way in which she spoke and the clarity of her testimony, that she was telling the truth. She wants to come back and tell the remainder of her story, but the government will not let her do that.

Tomorrow the justice committee is having another meeting. We will see whether the government changes its mind and allows that to happen, notwithstanding two previous efforts through motions the government, through the Liberal majority, chose to squash.

This is about the rule of law. That is part of our Constitution. It is in the preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Does the government care? It is changing the channel again, and this is where the sadness I started my speech with comes to bear.

I have known Anne McLellan for many years. We taught constitutional law at the same time at different universities. She was an extraordinary academic and an excellent minister. I have great respect for her work on the cannabis report as well, which saw all of its recommendations implemented. Why she would let herself get into this charade saddens me greatly, because it is another example of changing the channel. She is now going to study whether the attorney general should no longer be a member of cabinet, but she is a partisan Liberal. There is nothing wrong with that, but how can Canadians have any confidence that our rule of law principles are going to be maintained?

Ms. McLellan is not, presumably, going to talk about whether the former attorney general was fired from her role because the Prime Minister did not like her standing up and doing her job. We do not know, because the Prime Minister will not let us know. He will not let her testify. I do not think that Anne McLellan, talented, competent and ethical as she is, is going to be given that mandate.

Liberals are turning this into an academic law reform question, rather than the central question Canadians are anxious to hear about.

When I say anxious to hear about, I was in a village called Witset in northwest British Columbia on the weekend with many leaders of the Wet'suwet'en in First Nation. I cannot say how many people thanked me for the work we did on the justice committee when the former attorney general testified. They were watching, and they are angry at the government.

I come at this more with sadness in that the Liberals they think they can get away with this and use Anne McLellan to change the channel.

I say I am sad for another reason. I have had the honour of serving with my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton on a committee in which we produced unanimous reports consistently. It has been an excellent committee and I have publicly praised the chair for the way in which he has run our committee meetings. However, that all changed dramatically when we had carriage of this hot potato issue.

We saw a bunch of new Liberals, who I had never met before, being brought in to committee. I wondered who those people were. All of a sudden they voted as a bloc. It looked to me that they were voting as they were told by someone else. However, the Prime Minister as recently as this afternoon said that we must let the committee do its job, as if it had any independent role yet to play.

Canadians should watch this process. They should watch this charade. However, they cannot because it will be held in camera tomorrow. All of us will be watching whether the motion I have put forward on the Order Paper will be allowed. The motion would allow her to come and testify again. Although it is an in camera meeting, we will find out very clearly what the answer is.

My point is that the Prime Minister said that we had the Ethics Commissioner and not to worry, that he would come to the rescue even though his mandate does not have anything at all to do with whether there was political interference in this issue. It has to do with private interests, which is economic in nature.

Then the Liberals tell us not to worry, that the justice committee will do its job. Canadians should watch TV and see how it is doing that job. I dare any Canadian to conclude that the fix is not in on that committee, which I am very sad to say.

The last version the Prime Minister used today was the sub judice rule. I invite anyone to read the decision of the Federal Court. It laughed SNC-Lavalin out of court in an absolutely staggering way. There is this notion that we can interfere legally within a court at the discretion of the director of public prosecution. There is no way that can be done, and the court has made that clear. A slap down would be a light way of describing it. The Prime Minister tells us we have sub judice rules, it is before the court. If that case is appealed, it will be even more of a joke than what happened at Federal Court. Do not take my word for it. I invite Canadians to read the decision of Madam Justice Kane. If they appeal to keep this before the courts, that would be even more scandalous. Then there is a simple fraud case in Montreal, as if that has anything to do with the work we are doing here.

All three excuses are completely bogus. That the justice committee will get to the bottom of it is wrong. That the conflict commissioner will deal with this is wrong. That it is sub judice is essentially wrong. We need to have a public inquiry into this. I am sad to say that the justice committee is completely debased. I am so sad to be saying that because I was so proud to be on that committee. It is not going to get to the bottom of this. People should watch TV to see what it did. They should watch what the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell did at the emergency debate last Friday, He moved adjournment. It was non-debatable and home we went. We sat for 15 minutes at great expense to the taxpayers to bring people to committee from different parts of the country, and for what?

It is supposed to be coming up tomorrow I am told. The eyes of the nation will be on that committee tomorrow. We will see whether the Liberals are prepared to let the former attorney general be unmuzzled and let her tell her truth. They let other people like Michael Wernick come back. We will see whether the Liberals will allow that to happen. If they do not, we will know how they feel about the rule of law in our country.

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

Madam Speaker, I have three quick clarifications and then a question. The sub judice rule applies to two ongoing matters in respect to SNC-Lavalin: the judicial review that the member opposite just mentioned and the basic prosecution. Second, the member asked about the rule of law. A statement from the office of the DPP head, Kathleen Roussel, is that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.

The statement about the rule of law from the former attorney general at committee is, “I do not want members of this committee or Canadians to think that the integrity of our institutions has somehow evaporated. The integrity of our justice system, the integrity of the director of public prosecutions and prosecutors, is intact.”

Those are the three clarifications.

The member invoked the indigenous leaders he met with during constituency week. The member for Timmins—James Bay is participating in this debate as well. He is a strong advocate for indigenous reconciliation. Do those members believe it would be better served for those Canadians to be addressing Bill C-92 and child welfare legislation that would address indigenous reconciliation in a meaningful way rather than raising this issue, which is debating a report that was tabled not in June 2018 but in June 2017?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, first, I did point out the basic fraud prosecution in Montreal along with the judicial review. It is a simple fraud case, which has nothing to do, I would argue, with what we are doing in Ottawa.

Second, the DPP had indeed said that there had never been any successful interference, and the Liberals are holding this out as a virtue. Katie Telford is alleged to have said, by Jessica Prince, that the time had passed for legalities. Mr. Butts was quoted as saying that there was no solution without interference. Those are the words she said. Are we supposed to take that as a good thing about the rule of law?

What about the fact that the former Treasury Board president resigned and talked about constitutional principles and ethics? Are we to forget that conveniently as well?

I would dearly love to talk in the House about indigenous issues. However, on a principle like the rule of law is at stake, I make no apologies for talking about that every day I can.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Victoria is absolutely right that over the last three and a half years we have worked well together as a committee on a personal basis. It has really been sad to watch the Liberals on this matter. At every opportunity, they have blocked and obstructed the ability of a committee to do its work to the degree with which they believe they can get away.

One of the saddest moments in the last three and a half years was last week when a temporary member of the committee came in and shut down debate and the Liberals all walked out the back door, afraid to face the cameras. They do not have the guts to make arguments in public about why the former attorney general should not be called back to committee.

Mr. Butts went on at great length about the circumstances surrounding the former attorney general being removed from cabinet, yet the Prime Minister continues to silence the former attorney general from speaking about those matters.

As a matter of fundamental fairness, is it not imperative that the former attorney general come back to committee?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from St. Albert—Edmonton for his service on the committee. He has been a very effective member.

I was also ashamed to observe the motion from the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. To my knowledge he has never been on the committee in the three and a half years I have served there. He came in and basically was given the job to be the fixer or the hammer and everybody apparently walked out the back door. The Liberals were afraid to face the public and afraid to face the music.

There is a question of fairness, to which he alluded, that I also want to address. There were some very serious things said by the former attorney general about one of the most senior people in the Prime Minister's Office, whose name is Katie Telford. The allegation, which again is hearsay, was by Jessica Prince, the chief of staff to the former minister. She alleged that she had said that the time for legalities was over. Those are serious things that were said. We need, in fairness to her, to give her the opportunity to come and tell her story as well. Hearsay should not be enough in these circumstances.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I often will stand in my place and talk about what a wonderful privilege it is to speak to a particular issue when we talk about legislation, whether it is government business, private members' business, resolutions or motions of the day. Today, I am feeling a bit different. I am feeling somewhat discouraged because I know what we were supposed to be talking about today and how critically important that debate was supposed to be for all Canadians but in particular indigenous people and literally hundreds of children who live in Winnipeg North who are in foster care.

To get an appreciation of it, the province of Manitoba has well over 10,000 children in foster care. A vast majority of them are of indigenous heritage. For me, this was very important legislation. It was providing hope for communities across the country. In fact, during the break, I had a wonderful discussion with Sharon Redsky about the potential of the legislation we were supposed to be debating today.

However, the Conservatives, and what I refer to as the unholy alliance between the Conservatives and the New Democrats, have decided to change the channel. They do not want to talk about reconciliation and the importance of that legislation. They knew it was on the Order Paper today. Instead, they want to continue the debate on an issue that has been debated extensively. What did the opposition do in order to bring forward this debate? They did not really give it too much thought. They brought forward concurrence in a report.

Even when I was in opposition, and I was in opposition for many years, that was a give-me. The Conservatives went through all these different possibilities. They looked at the kind of a report they could bring in today to try to throw the government off track. The opposition members chose a report that was brought in back in June, not 2018 but 2017. That report has been sitting, collecting dust and that is the report they have chosen. They could have chosen from many reports, but that is the one they wanted to zero in on in order to try to frustrate the government so we would not be able to talk about what was important to Canadians.

This is not the first time the opposition has done that. The opposition continuously looks at ways to do two things: to attack the persons of this cabinet and individuals within this government on a personal level more often than not it seems; and come up with ways in which they can filibuster or try to frustrate the government so we cannot implement the type of good things on the agenda we made to Canadians back in 2015. Today is an excellent example of that.

I will get right to the point on that debate shortly. However, let me assure those individuals who are following the debate or watching what is taking place and the behaviour of the unholy alliance between the New Democrats and the Conservatives, that as much as they want to focus inside the gutter in many ways, we will continue to be focused on Canadians from coast to coast to coast in ensuring we are bringing forward progressive legislation and budget bills and plans that are in the best interest of Canadians. We know it is in the best interest of Canadians because we are working with Canadians day in and day out. In fact, we have a Prime Minister who has ensured that we there is a higher level of transparency and accountability, second to no other especially compared to Stephen Harper. There is a lot of irony there.

The Conservatives talk about the importance of the rule of law and the charter. I remember the attempt by Stephen Harper to get Mr. Nadon into the Supreme Court when I was in opposition. Recently, when I was posting something on Facebook, I saw something that had been posted regarding 101 Harper scandals. If members want to get a sense of the violations against the independence of our court system and the government of the day, they should look at Stephen Harper's performance.

I believe that absolutely nothing has gone wrong here. The Prime Minister and his government have done their jobs. I want to assure members that no matter what sorts of frustrations the opposition works together to come up with to prevent this government from presenting good legislation and positive budgetary measures, we will continue to represent, argue and debate what we believe is important to everyday Canadians who are trying to make it: Canada's middle class, those who are trying to be a part of it, and those who are in need, all of whom are priority one for this government.

We will not be sidetracked by an opposition that has one focus alone. That is why its members reach back to June 2017, when the item we are debating right now was brought forward. I hope later today that my colleagues across the way will reflect on what we could have been debating. I made reference to the 11,000 children in my home province of Manitoba. There are thousands of children all over our country who need to see the progressive legislation in Bill C-92 pass. I hope we will have a better chance of opposition members working together to ensure that this legislation is able to pass, even though they want to maintain their focus on attacks on the government.

I have been in opposition. I can appreciate that in opposition, they want to look at ways to hold the government accountable, and there could be some merit in that.

I listened to a lot of the debate. I would like to go over some of the things I picked up from the committee meetings. Some of the comments I heard were interesting, in particular those of Mr. Wernick. He was Canada's top civil servant. There was no one higher than Mr. Wernick within the Canadian civil service. The Conservatives have implied that this is scary. However, they should realize that this professional civil servant worked with Stephen Harper too. It was not one political party. This is an individual who committed his life for over 30 years to serving Canadians.

Mr. Wernick came to committee and made a presentation. When he looked at the matter as a whole, this was his conclusion. He stated:

It is my conclusion and my assertion, based on all the information I have, that there was no inappropriate pressure on the Minister of Justice in this matter.

It was interesting to listen to the former minister of justice with respect to two questions that really caught my interest.

The member for Edmonton Centre posed a question to the former attorney general:

did the Prime Minister...ever direct you to enter into a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin?

The former minister was very clear: “No.”

If Canadians listened to the Conservatives and the New Democrats, they would think that the Prime Minister was in her office every day of the year telling her to interject. However, she used her own very simple word to a very simple question, “No.”

The leader of the Green Party posed a question to the former attorney general:

do you believe that...the pressure...contravened the Criminal Code?

What did she respond? The former minister said, “I don't believe that.”

It is pretty straightforward stuff.

There are many quotes from those committee meetings. I would encourage members to do a little research on some of those quotes. What I believe they will find is that nothing has taken place that could not be defended in any sort of public meeting.

I would welcome members opposite in Winnipeg North. If they are so bold, and they feel they are so righteous on this particular issue, I would love to host any one of them in the riding of Winnipeg North to deal with this issue.

Every Saturday I go to a local restaurant. Some days I get 30-plus people coming to see me at that restaurant, and I have had maybe two, possibly three, talk about this issue, and one of them was actually very favourable. The other one expressed concerns. He expressed concerns, and I said that it sounded like he might be listening to what the official opposition was talking about and that maybe he was on an email list or something of that nature. He kind of laughed about it. He has come back since, and we have changed topics.

I give the Conservatives credit for being good in opposition. They are very good in opposition, and I wish them many more years in opposition.

At the end of the day, if members join me at that local restaurant, they will find that what people are talking about is immigration, the economy, and all sorts of other personal matters. People are not talking about SNC-Lavalin, at least not at that local restaurant. I might have had maybe 10 or 12 verifiable emails coming from my riding of Winnipeg North on the issue. If I compare that to other agenda items, what people want us to be debating in this House is what is important to Canadians.

The Prime Minister stood in his place today and said that over 900,000 jobs have been created by working with Canadians in all regions of our country. I will compare our efforts to former prime minister Stephen Harper's any day of the week.

Even when it comes to the rule of law and the charter, this is the party that brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are the ones who brought the Constitution home to Canada. We do not need lessons from an opposition party that, when it was in government, tried to put in a Supreme Court judge, which ultimately had to be taken away because of the prime minister's interference, in good part.

Seriously, do we need to take lessons from a previous government that had such a lack of respect for our charter that it often brought in legislation that violated the charter? When the Supreme Court made decisions, the Conservatives were found lacking in bringing in the legislation required to make amendments that were necessary. Some of the first legislation we had to bring in as a government was because of the Conservatives' unwillingness to respect the decisions of our Supreme Court.

At the end of the day, the Conservatives and their unholy alliance with the NDP will stand up and talk about SNC. However, I believe one of their biggest motivating reasons is that they have nothing else they really want to talk about.

If we look at the last three and a half years, we see a government that has consistently delivered from coast to coast to coast on a wide range of ideas, plans and programs that have assisted in the generation of well over 900,000 jobs, lifted thousands of children out of poverty, lifted thousands of seniors out of poverty and provided hope for many who did not have hope before. It has implemented a national housing strategy that is going to make a difference not only today but into the future. It has implemented an infrastructure program that is going to build stronger and healthier infrastructure across Canada. These are the types of things this government has been doing for the last three and a half years.

The NDP and the Conservatives realize that, and that is one of the reasons that today it is SNC, but they will always come up with something personal. We see that in their questions. We see that in their actions, as opposed to debating good, solid legislation. This is just one example.

At the end of the day, I believe that if the NDP and Conservatives—

[An hon. member]

The unholy alliance.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, the unholy alliance. Members are catching on across the way. It takes a little while, but if we repeat it every so often, it will sink in. However, that alliance needs to recognize that there are many opportunities they can actually be engaged in.

I look forward to the budget tomorrow. I suspect that Canadians are going to see a lot of good stuff in that budget. I would suggest that those members focus on the budget. It matters to Canadians.

With my 20-plus years of opposition experience, I will give them free advice. Give some time and focus on the budget. Give some time and focus on the legislation. Even opposition members can get credit if they start focusing on Canadians and what people really want to see happening. We can share some of that credit. If things are going well, there is nothing wrong with talking about good ideas going into the next election. They do not have to take the old Stephen Harper approach to election campaigns. They can get out of the gutter.

There is a better way of communicating to Canadians a positive message that will continue to provide hope where there is often no hope, a message that the national government really does care and that we can in fact work with other jurisdictions in Canada and make a difference. There are examples of that. As opposed to debating what they want to debate today, why not talk about the agreement between the Canada pension plan and the different provinces? Why not talk about the price on pollution and how Canadians are going to benefit from that? Why do the Conservatives not share in the importance of many of the different policy announcements?

The government House leader, the proud member for Waterloo, consistently talks about the positive things we are able to do. I will bet that her constituents appreciate it when we actually work with Canadians, bring back their ideas and incorporate those thoughts into debate, whether it is in this beautiful chamber or in our committee rooms.

I ran out of time. I was hoping to speak about committees.

At this time, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I look to your guidance and clarification. It did appear that the member's time had expired prior to his moving the motion. I seek your clarification as to whether that was in fact the case and whether that would make the motion eligible to be receded.