Debates of April 5th, 2019

(Return tabled)

Question No. 2242

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Windsor—Tecumseh, between April 2016 and January 2019: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Windsor—Tecumseh that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Windsor—Tecumseh by organizations tasked with sub-granting government funds (e.g. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 2243

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Rosemont--La Petite-Patrie, between April 2016 and January 2019: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Rosemont--La Petite-Patrie that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Rosemont--La Petite-Patrie by organizations tasked with sub-granting government funds (e.g. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 2244

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

With regard to housing investments and housing assets held by the government: (a) how much federal funding has been spent in the riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie on housing over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (b) how much federal funding is scheduled to be spent on housing in the riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; (c) how much federal funding has been invested in cooperative housing in the riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (d) how much federal funding is scheduled to be invested in cooperative housing in the riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; (e) how many physical housing units were owned by the government in the riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (f) how many physical housing units owned by the government are scheduled to be constructed in the riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; and (g) what government buildings and lands have been identified in the riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie as surplus and available for affordable housing developments?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 2245

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

With regard to housing investments and housing assets held by the government: (a) how much federal funding has been spent in the riding of North Island—Powell River on housing over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (b) how much federal funding is scheduled to be spent on housing in the riding of North Island—Powell River over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; (c) how much federal funding has been invested in cooperative housing in the riding of North Island—Powell River over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (d) how much federal funding is scheduled to be invested in cooperative housing in the riding of North Island—Powell River over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; (e) how many physical housing units were owned by the government in the riding of North Island—Powell River over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (f) how many physical housing units owned by the government are scheduled to be constructed in the riding of North Island—Powell River over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; and (g) what government buildings and lands have been identified in the riding of North Island—Powell River as surplus and available for affordable housing developments?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Justice

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada has four and a half minutes left.

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

Madam Speaker, as I was stating prior to question period, the Government of Canada has had no inappropriate involvement in the case in question. Allegations of political interference in the prosecution of the case are absolutely false and without merit.

As the Public Prosecution Service of Canada has made clear, “The PPSC has not sought or received instructions in respect of the prosecution of Mr. Norman from the Privy Council Office or any other government department or body.”

The director of public prosecutions, Ms. Kathleen Roussel, went on to say that “I am confident that our prosecutors, in this and every other case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”

The sub judice convention exists to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry. It is a critical element in maintaining the fairness of the criminal trial process before the court. To protect and maintain fairness, the rule restrains parliamentarians on statements made about ongoing legal proceedings, especially criminal cases, before the courts. For this very important reason, members of Parliament are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts.

In respect of Vice-Admiral Norman’s legal expenses, the government’s policy on legal assistance and indemnification establishes the framework to provide legal assistance and indemnification to Crown servants and matters greatly for the protection of the Crown’s interest, the fair treatment of its employees and the effective management of an organization. Where an individual makes an application to the government for assistance and indemnification under the policy, the application receives fair consideration and a decision is made, as was the case in respect of the vice-admiral.

For the rest of my time, I would like to once again address an issue that has come up several times over the course of this debate.

That concerns the issue of sub judice. We have heard this repeated over and over again in the context of this debate and in today's question period.

There is no better encapsulation of this than the one provided by the Hon. Peter Van Loan in the House on May 11, 2015, when he was a member of the previous government. Quoting House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 504, he said:

...Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters before the courts, or under judicial consideration, in order to protect those involved in a court action or judicial inquiry against any undue influence through the discussion of the case. ... It is deemed improper for a Member, in posing a question, or a Minister, in responding to a question, to comment on any matter that is [before the courts].

The position to invoke the sub judice rule was taken by the Harper government on no fewer than 300 different occasions in this country. It is important to note this, because people need to understand that what is being asked here is that we directly intervene.

I will end by noting that I find it highly ironic that the opposition, through this motion, is demanding that our government politically interfere in an independent prosecution that is currently before the Ontario Court of Justice.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, spring has sprung. Although it snowed in Alberta this week once again, farmers are getting ready to plant their canola seeds in the ground.

This has been a bit of an interesting spring. Farmers typically plan these kinds of things several years in advance, but this year they are wondering what they should do. They wonder whether they should plant canola or a different plant this year, given that China, the biggest consumer of the canola we produce, has closed its borders to our canola.

The thing we are dealing with here is the rule of law. In Canada, we are dealing with the government's insistence on inserting itself into the judicial system in the SNC-Lavalin case. We see how that has impacts that go all the way to China, such as with the Huawei case, even though the government has said that it deals with the rule of law in Canada and it does not interfere. We also see impacts now regarding the Mark Norman case, as we suspect that there is some interference there.

What does the minister have to say about the fact that China has closed its border to our canola seed?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before we go to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I want to remind members that it all has to come together and address the motion.

[Arif Virani]

Madam Speaker, if you can indulge me very briefly, I am very happy that the canola question is being raised in the context of debate. Surely we could have more questions about such important and pressing economic and agricultural matters in this country.

The connection the member opposite was trying to make is that rule-of-law concerns permeate many aspects of what is taking place in this country right now with respect to Vice-Admiral Norman's trial. In response to that question, I will reiterate that the rule of law remains intact. The evidence before the justice committee from the former attorney general in the SNC-Lavalin matter underscores this, and the statements of the director of public prosecutions reiterate it.

To reiterate, I quote again that “The PPSC has not sought or received instructions in respect of the prosecution of Mr. Norman from the Privy Council Office or any other government department or body.”

That statement affirms the fact that the rule of law remains intact, which has implications around the country in various matters, including the canola matter just raised by the member opposite.

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

Madam Speaker, with respect to Vice-Admiral Norman, I am concerned about whether there is interference at cabinet and about the role of Scott Brison and the role of the Irvings. I believe these are all serious issues and are just as serious as the leaks regarding the Supreme Court appointments and the smear effort against the member for Vancouver Granville. We have to respect the rule of law.

I am also very concerned about the motion being debated today. As difficult and terrible as the treatment of Vice-Admiral Norman is, I believe this should be dealt with by a parliamentary inquiry on these issues. When we have an ongoing court case, it is very dangerous for Parliament to attempt to try that case in real time because of the danger of interfering with the sub judice convention and thereby interfering in an ongoing court case.

If we are going to accept the rule of law, we cannot just take it on when it is beneficial to the opposition or beneficial to the government. We have to be seen in Parliament as standing up for it, whether on the SNC issue or this issue.

[Arif Virani]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite has a lot of experience in this chamber, and I absolutely underscore the comments he just made.

Obviously, we come from different parties, and sometimes we have very strong positions and opposition to one another on different matters, but on this point, he is absolutely correct. The very terms of this motion call for, in subsection (b), to “provide Vice-Admiral Mark Norman’s defence with all records relating to his prosecution, including but not limited to”, then it lists a long list of items.

That very issue is before the Ontario Court of Justice right now. What the opposition is doing in presenting this motion is effectively trying to subvert and leap over the ongoing judicial process and dictate to a sitting judge in this country what should and should not be disclosed. It is for the judge to make that determination based on the submissions and evidence he receives and for the judge to make that determination based on the privilege that is sought to be applied. That is what the rule of law means in this country. That is what must be respected by all parliamentarians in this chamber.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would not want Canadians to be confused by what my hon. colleague is saying. Ultimately, we in the opposition are asking the government to comply with the direction a judge has already made to deliver court-ordered documents.

The government is politically interfering by ensuring that those documents do not get to that judge and those lawyers to be heard in that trial for a fair defence.

The second-most important thing is that the government has ensured that all of its witnesses have taxpayer-funded, high-powered lawyers. This is another form of political interference, because while Vice-Admiral Norman has the right to a taxpayer-paid lawyer, the government has denied him that right, therefore jeopardizing his ability to mount a defence.

Do not be confused. This has nothing to do with interfering in the trial. It has to do with the government politically interfering to ensure that we cannot have a fair trial.

[Arif Virani]

Madam Speaker, those are a couple of important points, and I think they bear some explanation. I am glad the member opposite raised them.

The issue before the court right now, as I have mentioned, is a third-party records application. It is for the evidence and documents to support, in a preliminary manner, what will eventually become the evidentiary base in the trial. That is what is before the court right now. That is what the court is deliberating upon.

The member opposite raised the issue of government compliance with court orders. This government, any government in Canada, thankfully, complies with court orders. That is what the rule of law means. We continue to do so.

Second, on the issue of the government's participation in the process, justice department lawyers are participating equally and at the same time as Vice-Admiral Norman's lawyers.

On the issue of the payment of legal expenses, what the member opposite should know is that we are applying a Treasury Board policy that has been in place since, I believe, 2006. That policy was put in place by the previous government. It is a good policy, and it is a policy that addresses the needs of people who find themselves facing litigation. That is the policy that is being applied and is being enforced in this case.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all I am always happy to point out that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions does a wonderful job speaking French. I thank him and congratulate him for that.

However, just because he is speaking French does not mean that I necessarily agree with what he has to say. Earlier he said that there had been absolutely no political interference in the Vice-Admiral Norman case. This is exactly what is in question here, so let us leave it up to the courts to decide.

We want the truth to come out, and we want individuals to have a right to a full and complete defence. This means that the government must provide all of the evidence and must give a man of this rank access to a defence paid for by the state, as has been the case in some 20 cases in our country's history.

Why is the government refusing this perfectly legitimate request?

[Arif Virani]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague from across the House. I will try to continue speaking in French, the language of Molière.

We agree that this is a criminal proceeding; that is clear. This is the first step in the legal process. It is the preliminary proceeding. We are at the preliminary hearing stage dealing with the documents that will serve as the basis or foundation of the evidence, that the judge will review in this particular case. We are not at the point where the judge decides whether the defendant is guilty or not, but this is nevertheless an important step.

I want to emphasize as part of this debate that we are participating in the process. We are following all the rules and guidelines set out by the judge. What we are not doing and what we would never do is intervene or interfere politically, which would undermine the independence of our judicial system and our Attorney General.

What we will not do is interfere in a political manner to disturb the independence of the public prosecution process.

What I would return to is the exact statement made by Madam Kathleen Roussel, the head of the Public Prosecutions Service, who said, “[we have] not sought or received instructions in respect of the prosecution of Mr. Norman from the Privy Council Office or any other government department or body.”

That is a good thing, and that is exactly what we want to remain the case in this case.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, today I am here to speak to the Conservative motion. The issue before us is a serious one. The last several weeks in Parliament have been ones of great conflict and serious debate about the ethical behaviour Canadians want to see in the people who represent them. In the midst of this drama and concern, the lives of the people of this country continue, and the struggles they face at times make it very hard to have time to consider these serious issues brought before the justice committee, the House and all Canadians.

In reflection of these realities, I would like to take a personal moment to recognize the fact that life happens outside of politics. I was sadly reminded of this on February 11 of this year, when my brother, Darius William Mould, died suddenly and unexpectedly of a massive heart attack. In the few weeks after his passing, the busy life I live, filled with working in my riding and making sure that its voice is heard loud and clear here in this place, was paused.

Yesterday my brother would have been 39. It was a sad day for my family, and I want to recognize them, as I believe we should all recognize the people who love us, as we ask them repeatedly to let us come to this place and do the important work we do here, rather than be with them through these difficult times.

My brother was a hard-working man. He has left a huge hole in the world with his passing, and it is very hard to adjust. My brother was a powerful singer, a man who turned friends into family, and the middle brother of five siblings. I am very grateful to my many constituents who sent cards and messages of condolence during that time.

It is moments like this when we remember that we are people. We do not know how much time we or our loved ones have in this world, and the people who we love are so very precious. As we are here doing the work that we must, I hope we all remember to appreciate those people who mean so very much to us. I have been sadly reminded of this with the loss of a very beloved brother.

Today we are here to speak about the case of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. I am personally deeply concerned about the allegations that have been put forward about the Prime Minister and the Privy Council Office influencing federal prosecutors in the case of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. While these allegations are unproven, it is troubling, given the alleged interference by the Prime Minister's Office in the case of SNC-Lavalin.

All of us here have been told that one politician is much like another. The level of cynicism in the world and in Canada concerns me greatly. The people of this country want us to focus on the issues that matter most to them.

The Government of Canada has the important duty of spending tax dollars in a responsible way, looking at opportunities that will benefit the people of this country, closing the gaps that leave too many far behind and having the institutions of Canada operate without any political interference.

When I speak with my constituents, they want to feel that their political representatives have their backs. I find that even disagreement is okay if I take the time to learn and understand.

In my riding of North Island—Powell River, many are worried about the environment. Today in Campbell River, local high schools are planning to strike to protest the lack of action on climate change. It is very important to listen to young people. I remember the late elder Ellen White telling me that young people had the energy and were quicker to see injustice. This makes their voices extremely valuable. We saw that in the House recently. I certainly hope that all of us here remember to listen to them.

I also hear from veterans who feel betrayed after many years of that experience with the former government. It is very exasperating for them to have to continue to fight for very basic supports.

Affordability continues to be a significant issue. In my riding, people are not sure how they will afford the most basic of necessities, such as the cost of housing and medication, as they continue to increase. Waiting for these issues to be addressed creates cynicism, and when the reality the former minister of justice brought to our attention is replayed in the media, Canadians are, reasonably, concerned.

Now we look at the motion before us today and we have heard that the lawyers of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman say that the Crown prosecutors have been politically influenced by lawyers from the Privy Council Office.

With the questions that have arisen from actions of the former Privy Council clerk and the Prime Minister, this is something that Canadians deserve to know more about. This is exactly why the New Democrats continue to insist on a public inquiry.

In an article in the Huffington Post regarding Vice-Admiral Norman, on February 11, it said:

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman’s legal team has raised questions about the independence of federal prosecutors after the Crown and lawyers from the department that supports [the] Prime Minister...spoke several times last year about “trial strategy”.

For the people across Canada who are working several jobs to make enough to pay for a loved one's medication or a person who is at risk of homelessness, this sounds like something so far from their everyday life and they have asked me why should they worry about this.

It is important because it speaks to the strength of our systems. It speaks to the ability of the Prime Minister's Office to politically interfere in the systems in which we have to put our faith. Vice-Admiral Norman's lawyers have made it clear that the Privy Council Office supports the Prime Minister and executes what the Prime Minister's Office wants. Therefore, Crown attorneys should not have discussed trial strategy with them as it is seen as influence on a Crown attorney that should be independent of politics.

Even the consideration that Crown attorneys are being put in the position of any political interference is something we should all be disturbed by. I will state here again that allegations have not been proven in court. I respect that. The fact that the allegations include the Prime Minister's Office inappropriately bypassing the office of the Attorney General and dealing directly with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada are ones that in the current political climate only worry me more.

Today we have a motion before us that asks:

That, given the recent allegations of political interference against the Prime Minister and given that Canadians reject the Prime Minister’s excuse for his actions as simply routine government business, the House call on the government to show respect for the rule of law and immediately

These are requests that must be considered carefully. I hope the members on the government side are considering heavily what has happened in this case and in the case we have most recently heard so much about.

I have the deep honour of representing the people of the former attorney general, the We Wai Kai community of the Laich-kwil-tach speaking people. The member for Vancouver Granville has often introduced me as her mother's member of Parliament, something I continue to be very honoured to be.

It was in a community I represent that the former minister of justice came for a traditional ceremony in the big house, a ceremony of honouring. As one elder said to me, "We are wrapping her up in our love.”

In this place there is not, sadly, a deep understanding of the words that the former minister spoke to the justice committee, when she said quote:

...I was taught to always be careful what you say because you cannot take it back. I was taught to always hold true to your core values and principles, and to act with integrity. These are the teachings of my parents, my grandparents and my community. I come from a long line of matriarchs, and I'm a truth-teller in accordance with the laws and traditions of our big house. This is who I am, and this is who I always will be.

I believe that these words will be written in history books. When I heard them spoken, I was moved. I could feel what she was telling people, something that so few were able to understand. For me, this was a statement of fact, of identity, identity in a sense of she knows where she comes from, the matriarchs who have worked hard for several generations to put her in the place she is today. That is a dedication and a responsibility that one does not take lightly because those generations are watching and they gave up so much.

I believe the member has fulfilled this responsibly, and I am very proud to know her and her family. To trust the institutions that oversee the justice of our country, Canadians need to know that political interference is something that those institutions are simply not exposed to. We all know, because of the people we hear from in our ridings and those responding to different articles across this country, that right now and right here in this country there is significant doubt.

In January of 2017, Vice-Admiral Norman was suspended from his role as the military's second in command. Last March, he was charged with one count of breach of trust. It has been alleged that he was leaking government secrets on a shipbuilding deal. This is a serious charge. In the 41st Parliament, New Democrats supported the national shipbuilding strategy. In fact, all parties supported it.

I recently spent the day in Port McNeill, a beautiful community in my riding, with the Canadian navy. Commodore Topshee brought several ships to visit the community and do the important work of outreach. It is moments like these when it is easy to be proud of the Canadian Armed Forces. The trip I had on an Orca patrol craft was amazing. This experience showed me the high level of skill and dedication those men and women in uniform have. I was very impressed.

Although I did not speak to anyone about the shipbuilding strategy on that trip, I was reminded of a comment I heard from someone about the continuous reduction of support we have seen in this country to the military over the last 20 years. As a constituent said to me, the military has become very efficient, and at some point, it is impossible to become more so. At some point, it will just need more resources to get the job done.

I hope that in the context of this conversation we are all mindful of this, especially as we face the realities of climate change. Our Canadian Armed Forces are some of the most concerned about these issues, and I have heard those worries expressed at the national defence committee. It is also Canadian Armed Forces members who are trained to protect us. In the case of natural disasters, it is important they have the proper resources to do the jobs they are asked to do.

Returning to the vice-admiral, he has denied all wrongdoing and his trial is scheduled to begin in August. When we look at this case before us, there are serious conversations that we need to be having, and Canadians are having those conversations across this country. The Liberals are currently facing two allegations of influencing Crown attorneys, who are supposed to be independent of political interference. If these allegations are proven true, it calls into question the impartiality of the Crown attorneys and will throw the office of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada into disrepute. This is certainly not something I want to see happen.

When I look at the history of our Canadian Armed Forces, we have seen so many things go awry. Successive governments have continued to play politics with the lives of the men and women who serve our country. When it comes to the current government, it promised a new fighter jet, one with an open and fair competition. It has failed to deliver this. Instead, the competition is delayed until after the next election, and the plan that has been discussed is to buy used Australian jets.

As the member representing 19 Wing Comox, this is something that I have had to share my alarm about, and I have done so by communicating that concern to the Minister of National Defence. I see the hard-working people in the 19 Wing in my riding, and I appreciate their dedication to the community and the amazing work they do. It is very important that at no point we put them at risk by not getting the proper equipment they so desperately need. Again, it is unfortunate that they have had to wait so long.

During the last election, the Liberals promised a return to peacekeeping for Canada, but so far they have considerably under-delivered on that promise. The RCN needs ships now to meet domestic security requirements and international obligations. Any delay or changes to the national shipbuilding strategy would result in lost jobs for Canadians and a further capability gap in the navy. That is something that we just cannot have.

I remember the Canadian navy officials coming to speak to the defence committee and talking about the challenges they were facing in providing safety and support to the Arctic region of this country. Unfortunately, some people think that the ice is gone. Tourists are going up with boats that are simply not going to do the job and they are put in very risky and unsafe situations. We need to make sure that the Royal Canadian Navy has the resources that it needs to address these issues.

Sadly, this has been the reality of our armed forces for far too long, doing their very best with the limited resources they have. The last Conservative government led to 10 years of drastic cutbacks across all of the Canadian Armed Forces. The fact is that the former government failed to get the procurement under way for all branches of the Canadian Armed Forces and the current capability gaps are a direct result of a decade of inaction that has been followed up by another over three years of inaction. This is disappointing in this country. Like so many Canadians, the Canadian Armed Forces are just being asked to wait, to just continue to wait a bit longer. That is simply not okay. I will continue to do my work to change this.

I will be supporting this motion. In the face of the many allegations, there is a sense of disquiet in Canada. Releasing information to the lawyers of Vice-Admiral Norman is appropriate. Having the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office keep out of any so-called trial strategy is, again, only appropriate.

What Canadians want to see is transparency. They want to see accountability. They want to believe that the institutions here in this place are sacred and held sacred, and not full of political interference. Sometimes it is just time to accept what is before us, and I certainly hope that the government will do so.