Debates of April 5th, 2019

Opposition Motion—Justice

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

moved:

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:

(a) comply with the letter and spirit of all court orders and requests in relation to the trial of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman;

(b) provide Vice-Admiral Mark Norman’s defence with all records relating to his prosecution, including but not limited to, memos, letters, emails, PIN-to-PIN messages, SMS messages, and handwritten notes, including records that exist on personal electronic devices;

(c) require all current and former Cabinet ministers and their respective political staff and employees of the Privy Council Office since November 2015 to sign an affidavit affirming that no evidence or records related to the prosecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman have been destroyed, and that they have personally complied with all relevant court orders; and

(d) indemnify Vice-Admiral Mark Norman and provide legal assistance within 30 days of the adoption of this motion for any invoices that are in arrears, and within 30 days of the invoice date for any subsequent invoices.

Madam Speaker, before I begin I want to advise you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Durham.

This year has been a very troubling one for the rule of law in Canada. Of course the entire country is now familiar, and disgusted, with the disturbing case of the Prime Minister's political interference in the very serious corruption prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. Shockingly, this is not the only case that we know of.

Highly respected and regarded Vice-Admiral Mark Norman is under criminal prosecution for alleged leaks of cabinet documents, and was suspended from his role as the number two officer in Canada's military. This prosecution appears to have been politically motivated and Conservatives have said this since the beginning, but it is not just Conservatives who have this concern.

During preliminary court proceedings in an Ottawa courthouse just a few blocks from here, very serious allegations of political interference in this prosecution have been made. Honestly, we should not be surprised. The Prime Minister said publicly, and before the RCMP even completed its investigation, that it looked like this would be “before the courts”.

How in the world would the Prime Minister have known that? As the SNC-Lavalin mess has exposed, the Prime Minister and his government have an obsessive, unhealthy and seemingly corrupt fascination with meddling in criminal prosecutions.

How did this all happen in the first place? Sadly, just like the SNC-Lavalin affair, it all comes down to “Who do you know in the PMO?” Back in November 2015, right after the last election, the Liberals were drunk on power and arrogance, and had one of the first cabinet meetings of the Liberal government. Former Treasury Board president Scott Brison took the unprecedented step of trying to stop or delay the contract with Davie shipyard for a much-needed interim supply ship for the Royal Canadian Navy.

Why would he do that? What was behind that? Scott Brison and other Liberals from the Liberal caucus were looking out for well-connected interests from their own neck of the woods in Atlantic Canada. They wanted the contract changed.

Then there was a leak about it all from someone to CBC reporter James Cudmore, the same James Cudmore who, really interestingly, became employed in the defence minister's office just weeks after this big military scoop. Wow, what a coincidence. The Liberals got very angry and decided that they needed to blame someone.

We have seen the news in recent weeks, recent days in fact, about other government leaks. It is really interesting how these government leaks happen and the result of the government leaks, the response from the Liberal government, depending on what the leak is about, who leaked it and whether it helps or hurts them.

As part of the recent Liberal smear campaign against the former attorney general, we saw that it did not matter whose reputation the Liberals were going to tarnish when they were trying to tarnish her reputation. In fact, we saw, and it was very disturbing and disrespectful to see, the government leaks about applicants to the Supreme Court of Canada.

There has to be an investigation into how in the world leaks, misinformation and such a disrespectful campaign was allowed to happen against Chief Justice Glenn Joyal of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, a highly respected individual, not only in Manitoba but across the country. As for the leaks around him, which were not true and which were disrespectful, the government is just saying, “That leak? Oh well, it happened. We'll make sure it never happens again.” However, there is no investigation from the current Attorney General.

Let us compare that to another leak. The National Post just ran a story about a PCO leak inquiring into finding the brave soul inside the government who let Canadians know about the $10.5-million deal cut with convicted terrorist Omar Khadr. That one has the government upset. That was something it wanted to hide. It did not come straight from its offices, apparently. That one, the government is going to get to the bottom of.

We can see how differently the government treats what it calls “leaks”, leaks that come from it and leaks that it thinks come from someone else. It would appear that whistle-blowers who blow the whistle on Liberals must be punished, if we read between the lines of what the government is doing.

The leak concerning the supply ship was also investigated. That investigation turned up six separate leaks from the cabinet committee meeting where the issue was discussed, and some 73 people having knowledge of the details of Scott Brison's meddling, yet it was Mark Norman who was charged under the Criminal Code.

Do members know what happened just before those charges were laid and a 30-plus year respected veteran officer of the Canadian Forces was suspended—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I stand as a caution for my friend in terms of the direction that she might be taking in the debate and in some of her current comments. The sub judice convention is defined as a practice whereby hon. members refrain from making reference in debate to matters awaiting judicial decisions, whether they are before a criminal court, civil court or a court of record. On page 98 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, it reads as follows:

It is accepted practice that, in the interests of justice and fair play, certain restrictions should be placed on the freedom of Members of Parliament to make reference in the course of debate to matters awaiting judicial decisions, and that such matters should not be the subject of motions or questions in the House.

The member started by talking about the importance of the rule of law. We are concerned that the Conservative opposition could be crossing the line and that is the reason why I raise page 98 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, so that the member could be cautioned as to what it is that she is saying.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

First of all, I want to remind the parliamentary secretary that the motion is in order. I also want to advise the member that I appreciate the caution that he is putting forward, but so far everything has been in order and I will allow the member for Portage—Lisgar to continue.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, maybe that member should have warned his Prime Minister about interfering in a criminal prosecution when he sustained a campaign against the former attorney general to try to get her to interfere in a criminal proceeding. Maybe he should have put a little attention to that.

Let me get back to what happened just before the charges were laid against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

The chief of the defence staff had a meeting and a nice dinner with the Prime Minister's top staff, Katie Telford and Gerald Butts. There they were having a nice dinner, chatting about the criminal charges and planning.

We all know from the SNC-Lavalin scandal that PMO chit-chat about criminal prosecutions is pretty well par for the course in the Liberal PMO. Oddly, the chief of the defence staff seemed to have no notes about the advanced sneak peek he was giving Katie and Gerry. Maybe the Prime Minister's Office kept notes.

Mark Norman is trying to get those notes. He had to subpoena records in the possession of the Prime Minister, Katie Telford, Gerald Butts, Michael Wernick and former PMO issues management director Zita Astravas. It remains to be seen whether he gets them. Sadly, Mark Norman is being forced to fight to get access to his own records. Now, more than two years after being suspended from the Canadian Armed Forces, Vice-Admiral Norman is struggling to get the material he needs to mount his own defence.

Here is the irony of ironies. Gerald Butts, who has resigned from the Prime Minister's Office in the midst of the SNC-Lavalin affair, seems to have full access to all of his records. We have just seen that with emails, texts and very meticulous notes he took, which seem to have been written verbatim and make it appear he may have taped the conversations. He has access to all of it. He is not even working for the PMO anymore, but he has full access to all of it, none of it redacted. Is that not interesting? Gerry Butts, the Prime Minister's best friend, has complete access to his papers for his testimony to the justice committee. However, what about Vice-Admiral Mark Norman? No, there is nothing there. When he did get a 60-page document it was all redacted.

We know why Gerry Butts went to testify. Another interesting fact is that all of these individuals at the PMO have lawyered up with different law firms. In fact, the Prime Minister's communications director defended all of this by invoking a reference to Treasury Board rules. By the way, all of these lawyers are paid for by the taxpayers.

Treasury Board rules do allow for public servants to have access to outside legal advice in respect of work-related issues. However, who has been denied support under the same Treasury Board rules? Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. All of this boggles the mind. Who gets access to documents? PMO buddies and staff who quit in disgrace. Who does not get access to documents? Well-respected veterans from our military, who have served the country with distinction and are being used as scapegoats by the Prime Minister and his office. It is shameful to watch

Canada is a democracy. A corner of our democracy is the rule of law, yet the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office treat criminal prosecutions like a play thing. In one case, the Prime Minister is sandbagging, charging and denying a fair trial to an honourable man all because of political convenience and because he thinks he might have put himself in the way of the interests of a well-connected Liberal-friendly company.

In the other case, we have the Prime Minister sneaking a new get-out-of-jail provision into an omnibus budget bill, then directing the organized badgering, bothering and harassing of the former attorney general and finally firing her. He has put in place someone, yet it all remains to been seen, to do his dirty work for him. We have yet to see what is going to happen and what the current Attorney General is going to do with this DPA for SNC-Lavalin. If it does get a DPA, it is clear that the former attorney general was fired so the current Attorney General would do exactly what the Prime Minister asked for. That is unconscionable. That is what corruption is.

This is all horrible to watch. It is clear that there was a plan to move heaven and earth to protect the interests of well-connected, Liberal-friendly companies. What sort of country do we live in where a powerful Prime Minister, backed up by a powerful backroom of political operatives, can just decide to mobilize the power of the state, the police, the prosecutor, name it, to help friends and punish enemies? That is not Canada. The Conservatives will have none of it.

[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 thank the member for Portage—Lisgar for starting us off this morning on this important issue. I will start out my comments by underscoring the important contributions that all members of the military have played for the country, including Vice-Admiral Norman.

I take issue with one comment that was made toward the end of the member's comments when she said that there was denial of a fair trial. In fact, it is quite the opposite. My colleague, the parliamentary secretary, mentioned the sub judice convention. The reason why that is observed is precisely because we do not want comments in the House to affect the trial fairness of any accused, including Vice-Admiral Norman.

I am struggling to understand the member's impression that trial fairness is not being observed when we have this quote from Kathleen Roussel, the director of Public Prosecutions of Canada. She has said:

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.

She continues:

I am confident that our prosecutors, in this and every other case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.

Based on those comments from Kathleen Roussel, could the member please explain why she is concerned about the rule of law in this case?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, this all began where there was political interference, and it was on the floor of the House when the Prime Minister said that we would see because this would go to court. Before the investigation had even been completed, the Prime Minister showed that clearly he had information and he foresaw that this would go to trial.

As well, we are seeing so much information not being given to Vice-Admiral Norman. I think the concern is that we see a lot of the pattern on this, whether it is the code names or information in documents not being given to the vice-admiral's defence, a pattern which we have seen in previous governments, such as with Kathleen Wynne in Ontario.

If the government has nothing to hide, it could support this motion. There is nothing in here. We are just asking that he has a fair trial and that he gets the documents. We are really concerned about emails and texts being deleted. The Liberals have not answered that and not been clear on it.

If my hon. colleague is not concerned, the Liberals will support our motion.

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

Madam Speaker, when we look at what has been happening for the last several weeks, there has been an increase of concern. Now we are looking deeply at this and I think Canadians want to know what the political interference is and what the accountability measures are.

The NDP has asked repeatedly for a public inquiry into these processes. We believe this should be a transparent process where Canadians are allowed to see what is happening. When I talk to constituents in my riding, I hear very clearly that they want to know that the people who represent them politically do so in an honest way. This is creating a lot of concern.

Could the member speak a bit about what a public inquiry could look like and would the Conservatives agree to support that?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is very right. There is a real concern that the separation of the executive, the legislative and the judiciary is not being respected with the Liberal government. There have been numerous examples. The two we are discussing have taken over and the country is consumed with them. This is clear evidence of political interference in criminal prosecutions by the Liberal government.

This is not just a matter of the members of the government knowing people and people knowing them so they are just going to meddle a bit in criminal prosecutions. If we do not have strong foundations and strong pillars in our democracy, one of those being that political interference is not allowed in criminal prosecutions, then everything else is a sham.

It is like a house. If a house is built on sand, it will collapse as soon as the storms and trials come. If Canada is built on a type of government where political interference is allowed, everything else, including the rule of law, democracy, our elections, our criminal prosecution and our financial systems, everything we do is all built on a sham. If the actual evidence is that individuals well connected to the powerful politicians can get what they want, it is a sham.

That is why this is so important. We need to get to the bottom of the SNC-Lavalin scandal. The problem is that under this Prime Minister, he is not allowing it to happen. He is shutting down every investigation.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the opposition House leader for bringing this important debate to the floor of the House of Commons. The Liberals are only giving us Friday for debate, so we are here to speak about the Mark Norman affair.

After throwing their colleagues out of caucus, the Liberals want to turn the page on the rule of law scandal that is the SNC-Lavalin affair. Therefore, we are going to turn the page today to another equally egregious scandal also involving the rule of law and Mark Norman.

For Canadians who may not know Vice-Admiral Norman or who have just heard about this case as the Norman scandal, he has given 38 years of service to his country in the Royal Canadian Navy. That is incredible service. His father served in the Canadian Army. Every day of Vice-Admiral Norman's life has either been part of a military family serving Canada or has served Canada in the Royal Canadian Navy.

He commanded HMCS St. John's, the best ship in our navy. I sailed on it too, so I am partial. He commanded our Atlantic fleet. He is a commander of the Order of Military Merit. He has the Canadian Forces' Decoration. He is a commander of the U.S. Legion of Merit. He was the vice-chief of defence staff.

However, to the Liberal government, he was a problem, and now he is being set up. It is shameful.

Where does this stem from? Given the events involving the former attorney general in the SNC scandal, if Canadians have any lingering doubt about whether the Prime Minister lives up to his sunny ways rhetoric, they need only look to the Mark Norman affair, which stems from the very first Liberal cabinet meeting.

The Gomery inquiry Liberals were back. Their first chance at the cabinet table, they tried to reverse a naval contract. Scott Brison, who is retired now but has counsel for standing in the Norman affair, tried to change, delay or terminate a $700-million contract to give our navy a supply ship that was desperately needed after a fire took our final supply ship out of service.

We also know that months later, the intergovernmental affairs minister at the table had to put an ethical screen between himself and the Irving Shipbuilding interest. We know that countless Atlantic Canadian Liberals were very well familiar with the circumstances involving that contract.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am going to refer to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition. On page 99, it clearly cites a rule, to which we must listen. The member opposite has talked about the rule of law—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that I gave the floor to the parliamentary secretary. In order to move this debate forward, we need to listen to what he has to say. If the official opposition has a rebuttal, I will certainly entertain that under a point of order.

At this point, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will refer to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 99, which says:

The sub judice convention is important in the conduct of business in the House. It protects the rights of interested parties before the courts, and preserves and maintains the separation and mutual respect between the legislature and the judiciary.

The member opposite knows full well that this is an active court proceeding. I would caution the member opposite with respect to the words he is using. I am sure he would not want to say something inappropriate, given this is an active court case.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I want to remind the member again that the motion is in order and that there is some flexibility within this realm of debate. I still have not seen any portion of the debate that has touched on the concerns the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has raised.

I want to go back to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, which states, at page 99:

The practice has evolved so that it is the Speaker who decides what jurisdiction the Chair has over matters sub judice. In 1977, the First Report of the Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members recommended that the imposition of the convention should be done with discretion and, when there was any doubt in the mind of the Chair, a presumption should exist in favour of allowing debate and against the application of the convention. Since the presentation of the report, Speakers have followed these guidelines while using discretion.

I will go on to say that in a 2013 ruling, Speaker Scheer addressed these issues. He stated:

As Speaker, I must endeavour to find a balance between the right of the House to debate a matter and the effect that this debate might have. This is particularly important given that the purpose of the sub judice convention is to ensure that judicial decisions can be made free of undue influence.

I would suggest that the parliamentary secretary maybe review that portion of the House procedures.

I will allow the debate to continue. The hon. member for Durham.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canadians watching can see why the Liberals do not want to talk about these issues. They are trying desperately to stop us from raising this case. As I said, many members, including Scott Brison, the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and the member for Halifax West, had long-standing connections that went into questions about that decision. At the very first cabinet meeting, they were interfering with contracts in a way that appeared to be favouring interests some of them later had to declare conflicts with.

There was a news story written at the time about this, which I will quote. It states:

There are also allegations from different high-level sources in those same corners that Irving Shipbuilding Inc., a longtime competitor of Davie, meddled in the decision by sending letters to several cabinet ministers about the deal, an event that in the words of one defence source “tipped over the apple cart.”

Who wrote that story about the attempts by the new Liberal cabinet to interfere with the shipbuilding contract? A CBC reporter, James Cudmore, wrote that on November 20, 2015. What is funny is that there was an early Christmas present for James Cudmore in December of 2015. The Prime Minister's Office offered him a job. I would invite Canadians to go to the CBC website. His last two stories were on Liberal corruption in relation to the shipbuilding contract, and those were his last stories. He was then working for the defence minister. The Prime Minister's Office hired him to silence him. I invite Canadians to look into this.

Canadians now know Gerry and Katie, G and K in a lot of the text messages we have seen. The Prime Minister said to his caucus at the first caucus meeting that anything from Gerry or Katie was the same as coming from him.

Who did management in the PMO put in charge of issues on the shipbuilding crisis caused by their first cabinet meeting? It was a person named Zita Astravas, the go-to person for issues management in the PMO on these issues. How did Gerry and Katie know she would be the right person for the job? It is because they all worked together for Dalton McGuinty.

If Canadians outside Ontario do not know about the Ontario gas plant scandal, that gas plant scandal and the refusal to release information related to the gas plant scandal led to the prorogation of the Ontario legislature, the retirement of Dalton McGuinty and parliamentary proceedings against the attorney general, at the time Chris Bentley, who then left politics. That was the same crew that brought us the $1-billion gas plant scandal in Ontario. Why was the attorney general in Ontario held in contempt? It was because they used code words to avoid the disclosure of documents on the gas plant, such as “Project Apple” and “Project Vapour”, mysterious words that would not come up when searching emails or trying to disclose documents for ATIs, parliamentary inquiries or lawsuits.

They were all there: Gerry, Katie and Zita. Within months, they were back at it. It was revealed at the Norman trial that the same thing happened to Mark Norman. He was not called Apple or Vapour. He was called “Kracken” or “MN3”. In fact, Ms. Astravas was questioned on the stand as to whether those code words were used, “Kracken” and “MN3”. She was asked by Mark Norman's legal counsel if she discussed this matter with Gerry Butts. Her response was that she could not recall. That is farcical.

Canadians should be outraged. This is worse than the SNC scandal. We may have issues with bad practice by a company, but here is a Canadian who gave three decades of his life to his country, and before that grew up in a family serving the country, who is being hung out to dry. He is not Kracken. He is Mark Norman.

Canadians should be concerned that at the very first cabinet meeting under the Prime Minister, the old Liberal Party was back helping insiders. Four months later, SNC started lobbying. However, in November 2015, mere hours after that lovely stroll up to Rideau Hall with that lovely cabinet, most of whom are now gone and thrown under the bus by the Prime Minister, including Mr. McCallum, Mr. Dion and the friend of ours who now sits on this side, and after all the sunny ways rhetoric, in the first cabinet meeting, the Liberals were back to helping their insider buddies. It is who one knows in the PMO.

Why is this so outrageous? Mark Norman was relieved of command in January 2017. He was not charged with a single charge of breach of trust until March 2018. The Prime Minister said in April 2017 that Mark Norman was going to end up in court. That was a year before charges were laid. The Prime Minister already knew what was coming for Mark Norman. The Liberals' own Privy Council investigation, headed by Michael Wernick, I guess, revealed that 73 people were aware of leaked details from that first cabinet meeting, but only one has been set up as the fall guy.

That is why Conservatives here today are not going to turn the page on the rule of law corruption from the government. We are going to continue to stand up for Mark Norman. I hope Canadians now recognize that the same cabal that gave Ontarians the gas plant scandal, the prorogation of Parliament and the end of Dalton McGuinty's political career moved down the highway and are into the same practices. Canadians should be outraged. It is time to release the Kracken.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Durham shares the same profession as me, not just in this chamber but also as a lawyer, called to the Law Society of Ontario. When something is before the courts, as the issue of the third-party production of documents that relate to Vice-Admiral Norman's ability to marshal a defence is, it is a serious matter. It is before the courts in the province the member for Durham and I share. There is a judge actively deliberating on this very matter we are discussing.

There is a very important reason parliamentarians are under the rubric and the circumscription of the sub judice rule. It is so we do not say things that might unduly influence or be perceived to influence a judge sitting in the province of Ontario deliberating on this very matter.

The rationale is articulated this way:

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].

That quote was actually used by the member for Durham's former colleague, Peter Van Loan. I am just wondering why he does not believe it is applicable in this case.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the parliamentary secretary brought this up, because nothing trumps my privileges as a member in this House, not the sub judice rule, nothing at all. I would turn this on him as a member of the bar and as an hon. member. He is an hon. member. I know he is thoughtful. He should be outraged by the actions of his Prime Minister.

In fact, our top legal officer in the country, the former attorney general, told the Prime Minister not to interfere with an ongoing prosecution. It has led to the biggest rule-of-law scandal in the history of this country, so much so that we are raising the case of Mark Norman so that Canadians know that this was another politically motivated case. There is a breach of trust charge at the end of this.

Mark Norman does not own the company building any ships. There is no benefit in this case. It is farcical that it is even in court. I refer him back to his criminal law notes from his first year. He, as a lawyer, should stand up and demand better from the Prime Minister.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, most of this discussion is about a particular case of a member of our armed forces. There are allegations that they are being treated inappropriately and that information is not being disclosed. However, there is a bigger issue here. It is naval ships. I have been in this place for 11 years, and we still have not provided any ships.

The Conservatives had promised that they would build ships, naval ships, but I am deeply concerned about the lack of Coast Guard ships, which would be used to protect our fisheries and marine mammals, particularly in the Arctic, given the threats that will come from climate change.

I wonder if the hon. member could speak to this issue. My initial understanding was that the recommendation was for three ships for the navy. Why is it that all of a sudden it is being reduced to two ships? What, if anything, does this have to do with the fact that we continue to face delays in providing the proper equipment to our armed forces?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, at the heart of this issue are the ships. What is interesting is that I myself and, I think, the Minister of Transport are likely the only members of this chamber who have sailed operationally with the navy. He later went on to space and I went on to law. His career was more exciting, I think.

However, the ships are at the heart of this issue. In fact, what is so ironic is that Irving Shipbuilding and Seaspan are great companies on either coast that were part of the national shipbuilding program run by Mr. Harper. They are building the future of our combatant fleet and our Arctic vessels, including the polar icebreaker, the Diefenbaker. The Davie ship, the Asterix, which I would remind people was built on time and on budget, was a modified ship to fill in a capability gap that happened when our supply ship, our last one, had a fire. If our navy does not have the ability to replenish at sea, it is not a true blue-water navy.

Fo a country that is bounded by three oceans, with the longest coastline of any country in the world, we do need to do more. That is why it is so atrocious that at the very first Liberal cabinet meeting, they were trying to stop the ship.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before I go to the next speaker, I just want to remind those who are asking questions and making comments that when there is a shared time of five minutes for questions and comments, I would hope that members would be able to reduce the length of their question in order to allow other people to ask questions.

As well, to prevent more points of order on the same thing, I should have mentioned a while ago that while the sub judice convention is important to the conduct of business in the House, it also allows and ensures that there is a balance between the need for a separate impartial judiciary and free speech. That is why I am indicating that if I hear something that is not correct, then I will rule it out of order, but at this point everything has been in order.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

[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 would like to start by reiterating our respect for all of the men and women of the Canadian Forces, whether they are veterans or still serving today.

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada, PPSC, is a federal government organization that was created on December 12, 2006. The Director of Public Prosecutions Act sets out the roles and responsibilities of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the prosecutors that are authorized to act on his behalf.

The PPSC fulfills the responsibilities of the Attorney General of Canada in the discharge of his criminal law mandate by prosecuting criminal offences that fall within federal jurisdiction and by contributing to strengthening the criminal justice system. In this regard, the PPSC assumed the role played within the Department of Justice Canada by the former Federal Prosecution Service, FPS. Unlike the FPS, which was part of the Department of Justice, the PPSC is an independent organization, reporting to Parliament through the Attorney General of Canada.

The creation of the PPSC reflected the decision to make transparent the principle of prosecutorial independence. Under the Department of Justice Act, the Attorney General is responsible for the regulation and conduct of all litigation for or against the Crown or any department.

With respect to the conduct of civil matters, the Attorney General does not have exclusive decision-making authority over litigation positions. When it comes to civil litigation, there is often a high degree of policy involved in determining what position, among the available and viable legal arguments, should be taken in a particular case. Civil litigation differs sharply, in this respect, from criminal prosecutions.

When it comes to his role in prosecutions, the Attorney General must act independently, receiving orders from nobody, as an attorney general of England said in 1925. Specifically, he must act independently. The Supreme Court has found this to be a foundational constitutional principle of our democratic form of government.

The determination of who should be prosecuted for which crimes, which prosecutions should continue and which should not, and what sentences or penalties to seek must all be made solely on the basis of the evidence and with regard to the fair and effective administration of the criminal law. It is, however, still advisable for the Attorney General to inform himself or herself of the relevant context, including the potential consequences of a given prosecution.

The Director of Public Prosecutions Act mandates the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, PPSC, to provide prosecutorial advice to law enforcement agencies and to act as a prosecutor in matters prosecuted by the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the Crown. In fulfilling this important mandate, the PPSC benefits Canadians in numerous ways: by promoting effective investigations, the rule of law and respect for the rights of Canadians by providing pre-charge legal advice to investigative agencies. It also helps to uphold federal laws through principled and independent decisions by prosecutors and it instills confidence in the administration of justice by conducting prosecutions that result in a judicial determination on the merits of the case. The PPSC reports to Parliament through the Attorney General of Canada.

The Director of Public Prosecutions Act states that the director of public prosecutions, the DPP, acts “...under and on behalf of the Attorney General”. The relationship between the attorney general and the director is premised on the principles of respect for the independence of the prosecution function and the need to consult on important matters of general interest.

In 2006, there was a change in the landscape. The Director of Public Prosecutions Act created the independent Public Prosecution Service of Canada, the PPSC, as I have mentioned, and formalized the Attorney General's role in federal prosecutions by giving authority for the initiation and conduct of prosecutions to the director of public prosecutions.

The director acts as the deputy attorney general of Canada in this regard in initiating and conducting federal prosecutions on behalf of the attorney general. In most cases, the Attorney General himself or herself will not be involved in prosecutorial decision-making, although the Director of Public Prosecutions Act requires the director to inform the Attorney General of any prosecution that raises important questions of general interest. Thus, the legislation ensures that the Attorney General will be advised of important criminal cases.

As we know, the Attorney General may issue directives to the director of public prosecutions, which may be general or about specific prosecutions. When a directive is issued, it is issued through a fully transparent process where it is published in the Canada Gazette and made publicly available to all Canadians. As well, a general directive must be preceded by consultation with the director of public prosecutions.

The Attorney General may also, after consulting the director of public prosecutions, assume the conduct of a prosecution. This too is done through a transparent process where the Attorney General must publish notice of the intent to assume conduct of a prosecution in the Canada Gazette.

In terms of seeking the input of others when exercising his directive powers or the power to assume a prosecution under the DPP Act, it is appropriate for the Attorney General to consult with cabinet colleagues before exercising these powers. Often consultations are important in order for the Attorney General to be aware of perspectives that go beyond any particular case.

If he decides to either issue a directive or take over the prosecution, however, the Attorney General must make the final decision himself. Paramount in all of this is that, while an Attorney General may consult his cabinet colleagues about prosecutorial matters, the Attorney General does not take instructions in criminal matters from cabinet colleagues or from anyone else.

The Supreme Court has observed that, when exercising the prosecution function, the Attorney General acts in the public interest. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is the chief law officer of the Crown, with a responsibility to act in the public interest. He takes that responsibility very seriously. The notion of the director of public prosecutions’ independence relates to the prosecutorial decision-making process and all steps incidental to it. The director of public prosecutions is regarded as an independent officer, exercising quasi-judicial responsibilities.

Safeguarding the director's independence is the requirement that all instructions from the Attorney General be in writing and be published in the Canada Gazette, which I have mentioned.

In turn, the director must inform the Attorney General of any prosecution or planned intervention that may raise important questions of general interest, allowing the Attorney General the opportunity to intervene in, or assume the conduct of, a case. Additionally, the PPSC must provide the Attorney General with an annual report for tabling in Parliament.

Prosecutorial independence is a cornerstone of our democracy, reflected in the relationship between the Attorney General of Canada and the director of public prosecutions. Prosecutions of federal offences are carried out by experienced and skilled prosecutors across the country.

Given prosecutorial independence and the sub judice rule, which we have heard of already in this morning's debate, this government will not comment specifically on the matter of the charges laid against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, which is an active prosecution currently ongoing before the Ontario Court of Justice. The criminal trial itself will take place in due course, under the timelines and the deadlines determined by an honourable judge of the Ontario court.

The independence and the impartiality of that trial process must be respected—I cannot underscore that enough—and it must run its course without comment in the House in accord with the sub judice rule and the right of an accused to a fair and expeditious hearing.

A third party records application, which for the lawyers in the chamber is also known as an O'Connor application, was commenced by Vice-Admiral Norman's defence counsel in October of last year.

That application is what we call a preliminary proceeding in a criminal hearing. By that application, the Vice-Admiral's defence counsel team was seeking to obtain documents and records of various types from seven government departments or entities where those departments or entities are in possession of such documents. The seven departments or entities are the Prime Minister's Office, the Privy Council Office, the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Armed Forces, Public Services and Procurement Canada, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Department of Justice. All seven departments and entities were served with subpoenas requiring the production of the relevant documents or records to the Ontario Court of Justice.

In the course of such third party records applications, parties may call, or what is called subpoena, the witnesses to give evidence about the documents being sought. A witness may confirm potentially relevant documents exist or do not exist. They may provide evidence regarding efforts to locate relevant documents, including why such efforts are or are not successful. This is routine in any proceeding.

Other evidence can also be presented before the court including documents that are already in the possession of the parties to the application. This is something that is fundamental in both civil and criminal proceedings. In a criminal proceeding it goes to the issue of full answer and defence.

Once the evidence is presented to the court and all parties have made their submissions and arguments, it is then the role of the court, in this case the Ontario Court of Justice, to assess the evidence and argument that comes before it. If the court deems it appropriate or necessary, it may issue an order requiring a party to produce further documents or other evidence. The court may then assess the documents or records produced in response to the third party records application and order relevant records to be disclosed to the defence.

Where parties are responding to a third party records application argue that documents or records produced should not be disclosed either in whole or in part due some privilege claim on their contents, it is again for the court to decide whether such privilege claims should or should not be upheld.

Witnesses, whom I have mentioned, who are called to give evidence in the third party records application are sworn to answer the questions put them by counsel truthfully and to the best of their knowledge. That is a fundamental aspect of how our judicial system and court proceedings operate in this country.

Counsel may raise suggestions or allegations in questions that they put to such witnesses. Such allegations are just that; they are allegations. They have not been proven in court. It is for the court to ultimately decide what evidence to rely on, informing its decision at the appropriate stages of that very proceeding.

Again, there is a third party records application that has been brought, in this very case that is ongoing right now as we speak, by Vice-Admiral Norman's defence counsel. It is currently being deliberated by an honourable judge of the Ontario Court of Justice. That application is subject to the sub judice rule as much as the criminal proceeding itself and any other related proceeding that may arise.

It is a matter of public record that in the third party records application, the Vice-Admiral's defence team, counsel for the Attorney General of Canada at the Department of Justice, and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada prosecutors have made their arguments and their submissions before the court. The honourable judge is now assessing those arguments and submissions and will issue a decision in due course. The government is currently providing documents to the judge for her review and will continue to do so as directed by the judge.

The document identification review and production is a thorough one. Overall, the process aims to balance the public interest in disclosing documents with appropriately protecting information that is a cabinet confidence, with privacy concerns and with public interest immunity, and the concept of solicitor-client privilege. To be clear, claiming privilege over documents that discuss strategy is a standard practice in prosecutions as is protecting cabinet confidences.

The government and the Department of Justice counsel are acutely conscious of the interests of the defendant in an expeditious resolution of their criminal trial. This is an important point. The innocence or guilt of an accused is not decided in the course of a third party records application. That is a preliminary matter that takes place before the trial on the merits of the charge.

However, all involved continue to work to ensure that the application is concluded as expeditiously as possible, given the potentially high number of responsive documents to the request.

These efforts, which are ongoing, include searches of government systems and records, and where appropriate, individual's personal accounts and personal devices. Documents are reviewed for likely relevance and potential privilege claims, and provided to the court for its review and decision. Where the court determines a document to be relevant, it will also rule on whether any privilege claims should be upheld.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have four and a half minutes after question period when this returns to the House.

Rep Day

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was at Laval's École Charles-Perrault to participate in Rep Day, an event organized by CIVIX. I spent some time with Grade 3 students to answer their questions about the role of parliamentarians and how Canada's Parliament works.

One student, Léanne, wrote me to say that she liked when I answered questions, that she was excited to see me and that she would like us to pass a law to stop pollution.

I would like to thank CIVIX's Quebec office for this wonderful, inspiring initiative, École Charles-Perrault for hosting me, and Madame Florence, who welcomed me into her classroom. I would also like to thank Madame Stéphanie, an involved mom, as well as Léanne and all her classmates who wrote to me. I thank them for welcoming me and for being part of the conversation.

Haliburton Business and Community Awards

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Haliburton Highlands Chamber of Commerce recently hosted the 13th annual Business and Community Achievement Awards Gala. The chamber received 127 nominations, celebrating the active and innovative sectors within Haliburton County.

I would like to congratulate all award nominees and recipients, including the following: Dr. Kassie Wright for the Young Professional of the Year Award; Brandi Hewson for the Entrepreneur of the Year Award; the Rotary Club of Haliburton for the Not-for-Profit of the Year Award; Shontel Neville for the Customer First – Employee Award; Haliburton County Chiropractic for the New Business of the Year Award; and Haliburton Forest & Wild Life Reserve for the Tourism and Hospitality Award. Haliburton Solar and Wind took home four awards: the Customer First – Business Award, the Innovation and Creativity Award, the Business Achievement Award and the Skilled Trades and Industry Award. Harvest Haliburton won the County Warden’s Award, and Steve Todd received the prestigious Highlander of the Year Award.

Finally, a special thanks to chamber president Andrea Strano, general manager Jennifer Locke, the sponsors, staff and board of directors for organizing the spectacular event.

Daughters of the Vote

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Madam Speaker, over the past week, this very room housed 338 women from across the country for Equal Voice's Daughters of the Vote program. Through this program I had the opportunity to speak with Bronwyn Bridges, a young woman from the City of Summerside.

As 338 women of different backgrounds and political affiliations sat in this House, they shared their priorities and vision for Canada's future. With these young women at the forefront of our next generation of leaders, our future is in good hands.

Although, Bronwyn did not express any immediate plans to pursue a political career in our conversation, the qualities she demonstrated would serve her well in this or any other arena.

I congratulate Ms. Bridges for her participation in this program and I thank all 338 women who made their presence known in Ottawa this week.

Asbestos

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, today is World Health Day and April 1 to 7 is Global Asbestos Awareness Week.

Exposure to asbestos claims the lives of 2,000 Canadians each year and 200,000 people worldwide. Asbestos is a know carcinogen and there is no safe level of exposure. That is the evidence.

Champions like Saskatoon resident and union activist Jesse Todd have worked tirelessly for years and lobbied our government to eventually, in 2018, ban asbestos and asbestos-containing products in Canada. However, there is still more work to be done. Despite the ban, asbestos is still found in many places where Canadians live, work, play and go to school. Therefore, we must continue our fight for the safe removal and disposal of asbestos from our private and public infrastructure and the elimination of all exemptions to the existing regulations.

I ask members to join me today in raising awareness of the dangers of asbestos exposure and commit to eliminating this health risk for all Canadians.