Debates of May 30th, 2019

Foreign Affairs

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's Arctic sovereignty is long-standing and well established. As a person who has lived in the subarctic and experienced Arctic weather, Arctic concerns and expenses, let me tell you that this government stands with the people of the Arctic and will always stand for Canadian Arctic sovereignty. We will continue to work with international partners, we will declare our sovereignty and take every opportunity to ensure that Canada's interests and the interests of Canadians are maintained.

Indigenous Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, the people of Grassy Narrows believed the Prime Minister when he made a solemn promise to build a mercury treatment centre. He even gave them a timeline, and then nothing happened. I guess we should have known that the punchline was coming when the Prime Minister made a joke about them to his rich donor friends. The punchline came yesterday: an empty agreement. No wonder Grassy Narrows refused to sign that bogus agreement. Politics is full of broken promises, but what about this one?

How does the Prime Minister justify such deplorable treatment of the people of Grassy Narrows?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, building a health facility in Grassy Narrows is an absolute priority. That is why the minister went yesterday to meet with the chief and council in the community. Progress is being made and we are committed to a comprehensive solution that meets the needs of all of the community. The people of Grassy Narrows have suffered for over 50 years. We will find a path forward on a plan that meets the needs of the community now and in the long term.

Privacy

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

Oh, God, Mr. Speaker, that is their idea of a priority: no money for Grassy Narrows, but hey, lots of money for the billionaire Irvings. Speaking of which, when the media asked the government if it gave $40 million to the Irvings to make French fries in Lethbridge as part of an Arctic shipbuilding contract, what did the Liberals do? They tipped off the Irvings, who then threatened The Globe and Mail with a lawsuit. Think about that: a government snitch line for billionaires to target journalists over the spending of taxpayers' money.

What is the Prime Minister trying to do: turn Canada into some kind of two-bit potato republic for his friends?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, we have clear obligations to verify information that is commercially sensitive. We must receive consent from the contractor, and my team and officials followed all of the appropriate steps respecting privacy.

With regard to the reporter, he received the information he requested.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the Liberals polled Canadians about remediation agreements months before hiding the measure in the 2018 omnibus bill. Apparently Canadians across the country see these agreements as a get-out-of-jail-free card for corrupt and criminal corporate executives. The Liberals did not have public support for these agreements.

Is that why the Minister of Finance hid the measure in his bill at the last minute?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

I have three things to say about deferred prosecution agreements.

First, it was announced to Canadians through a gazetting process. Second, consultations took place around the country. Third, it appeared and was vetted at the finance committee of the House of Commons and was also vetted by a Senate standing committee.

These agreements exist among five members of the G7: Japan, Britain, the United States, Canada and France. They are important measures that ensure accountability at the corporate level and ensure that employees are rendered harmless.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have learned. Opinion polls showed that Canadians did not agree with protecting corrupt criminals.

The former attorney general also understood that adding remediation agreements to the omnibus bill at the last minute was just a ploy to protect the government's friends at SNC-Lavalin. We are all aware of the Prime Minister's political interference and months-long pressure campaign against her.

Now we want to know why the Prime Minister is being so dishonest with Canadians.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I would encourage the hon. member to choose his words carefully.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the documents and the policy he referred to, it is extremely important to emphasize the truth for those Canadians watching us on television. There are three criteria for these agreements.

First, there must be an admission of responsibility. Second, a penalty must be paid. Third, they must pay victim restitution. Fourth, they must co-operate with ongoing investigations. These agreements are not about get out of jail free cards; they are about holding corporate directors responsible for corporate wrongdoing.

We agree with the member opposite that those people need to be held accountable, and they are.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, actually, based on those very criteria the member just listed, SNC-Lavalin does not qualify for a deferred prosecution agreement. This is not just my opinion; that is the opinion of the top prosecutor, the former attorney general and now, most recently, a Quebec judge.

We already know Canadians do not support special deals for accused corporate criminals. Will the government confirm that no politician will overturn the justice system and give a special deal to SNC-Lavalin?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the decision that was rendered yesterday in a matter that is currently before the court. That was a preliminary inquiry about an evidentiary threshold in an ongoing criminal matter.

It would be entirely inappropriate for me as parliamentary secretary, or indeed for any member of Parliament, to comment on an ongoing criminal matter. I will refrain from doing so.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is new. Now, all of a sudden, the Liberals do not think politicians should be involved in the justice system. What a strange turn of events.

The top prosecutor, the former attorney general, a Quebec judge and Canadians writ large all believe accused corporate criminals like SNC-Lavalin should face the music in a trial. Unfortunately, the matter is not closed. The government still gives itself the power to interfere.

Will the Liberals confirm that no politician on that side will interfere to cancel the trial into SNC-Lavalin?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member has been a member of the House longer than I have, but I also appreciate that he does not have significant experience in legal matters. Let me just educate him about this one point.

The reason why the sub judice convention exists is because we should not have elected officials who are involved in appointing judges potentially influencing a decision made by an appointed judge. That is called inappropriate influence over the judicial decision-making process. That is why all members of Parliament are covered by the sub judice rule, and why his former House leader invoked that convention 300 times in the last Parliament.

Canada Revenue Agency

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we learned today that the Minister of National Revenue signed an agreement with KPMG clients to exonerate them of all charges in connection with its tax scheme. This is absolutely appalling and contradicts everything the minister has been saying for years.

This is yet more proof that there are two sets of rules, one for the privileged and another for everyone else. The minister just lost what little credibility she had left when she blamed public servants for this terrible agreement.

All she had to do was reel in the big fish, so why did the Minister of National Revenue cut the line and let it get away without facing any consequences?

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, our government is firmly committed to combatting tax evasion. The Canada Revenue Agency undertakes a fully independent process before reaching out-of-court settlements. This helps maintain the integrity of our tax system.

Although I understand that the regulations can be used appropriately in certain situations, I am concerned about the lack of transparency. I have asked the Canada Revenue Agency to review its processes to ensure greater transparency surrounding the reasons for which a settlement is reached.

Transportation

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

Mr. Speaker, the one thing that never changes is that the Liberals continue to sign secret deals with their millionaire buddies. We can always count on that.

Bicycles painted white have been placed on street corners and overpasses all over my riding. Why? To remind people that a cyclist was killed on that spot. These deaths are tragic and avoidable. I say they are avoidable because measures do exist that could make the streets safer for cyclists. They were actually proposed by departmental experts a few months ago. We have been waiting for several months now, but the Minister of Transport has not yet done anything.

How many people have to die before the Liberals will take action—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. Minister of Transport.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his commitment to the issue of the vulnerability of cyclists and pedestrians, which is a very serious subject.

We published a suite of measures that can be taken at the municipal, provincial and federal levels. At the federal level, we are currently conducting pilot projects aimed at improving sightlines for truck drivers and heavy vehicle operators. Once that is complete, we will make a decision.

I encourage municipalities and provinces to increase measures to make pedestrians and cyclists less vulnerable.

The Environment

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents in Kitchener Centre are deeply concerned about climate change. One young woman named Elizabeth Rose, age 15, wrote me a letter, expressing concern that inaction on climate change would keep her from celebrating her 75th birthday.

Our government believes that we are experiencing a national climate emergency. Unlike others in the House, we also know that a healthy economy and a healthy environment go hand in hand.

Could the Minister of Environment and Climate Change please highlight what our government is doing to transition to a clean economy so Elizabeth will celebrate her 75th birthday?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, this is for Elizabeth Rose. We are absolutely committed to tackling climate change. Right now we have seen flooding in the national capital region and in New Brunswick. We have forest fires that have started earlier out west. We need to take action and that is exactly what we are doing.

We are phasing out coal, ensuring a just transition for workers and communities, making historic investments in public transportation, in clean technologies and in energy efficiency. At the same time, we have created one million jobs. I know Canadians expect us to take action on the environment and grow the economy.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman served this country with dignity and honour and hopes to continue to do so. However, the Liberals sabotaged his career and have attempted to cover it up.

Yesterday, all Liberal MPs voted to continue the cover-up and refused to release the secret memo sent by disgraced former clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, regarding the Vice-Admiral Mark Norman affair.

What are the Liberals trying to hide?

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, committees operate independently from the government and make their decisions based on their deliberations. I know that is hard for opposition members to understand, since they controlled the committees under Mr. Harper's government.

With respect to the trial of Vice-Admiral Norman, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada noted that no other factors were considered and that there was no political influence. Any accusation to the contrary by the opposition is absurd and unfounded.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals think that if they repeat their lines loud enough, Canadians will accept all their cover-ups. Yesterday, they resumed the Mark Norman cover-up. They voted against releasing the memo sent by disgraced former Privy Council clerk, Michael Wernick, on the Norman affair. They continue with the cover-up because obviously they have something to hide.

What are the Liberals hiding? When are they going to come clean with the truth?

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I repeat that the committees operate independently from the government. It is the opposite of the way things were under the Harper government. Canadians can have confidence in our justice system.

This month, we supported a motion to recognize Vice-Admiral Norman for his service and to apologize to him and his family. We are also waiting to hear about next steps, because there have been discussions between General Vance and Vice-Admiral Norman.

The opposition's attempt to undermine the credibility of our country's justice system is totally absurd and unfounded.