Debates of May 9th, 2019

Justice

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Mark Norman's lawyer said, “what you don't do is you don't put your finger and try to weigh in on the scales of justice.” However, that is exactly what did happen in the Mark Norman trial. The Liberals actively worked against him.

The Prime Minister said that Norman would be charged while the investigation was ongoing. He refused to waive cabinet confidentiality. He withheld thousands of documents from Norman's defence team.

How does the Prime Minister defend his blatant interference in an ongoing judicial proceeding?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, it is a little offensive to hear the member opposite impugn the integrity of the RCMP in the independent conduct of its investigations and also to impugn the integrity of the Public Prosecution Service, which has made crystal clear that at no time was there any contact or influence from the government and that all decisions with respect to initiating the prosecution or staying it were made independent of the government.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants Canadians to believe that because he failed when he tried to politically interfere in yet another criminal proceeding, that his failure should be celebrated as an exoneration of his bad behaviour. That is like saying that someone who tries to rob a bank should get off the hook if he or she fails to get away with the cash.

The Prime Minister withheld documents, coached government witnesses and tried to bankrupt Mark Norman. How does the Prime Minister defend this blatant political interference in the judicial system?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction]

Mr. Speaker, once again, none of that is actually true. Let me be clear that all procedures conducted by the office of the public prosecutor and by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are totally independent of the Government of Canada. The entire structure of their work is designed to keep them independent.

Decisions that are made are made on the basis of proper legal considerations and the evidence. All of those considerations are weighed carefully in court before a judge.

The matter was entirely without political influence, and that is exactly what the director of public prosecutions averred yesterday.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister did everything he could to stop the Davie shipyard. He tried to destroy the reputation of Vice-Admiral Norman, who stood up to this interference. The Prime Minister does not like anyone to oppose him, which is exactly what the former attorney general did in the SNC-Lavalin affair. By strange coincidence, when the former parliamentary secretary announced that he would testify against his own Liberal government, the charges were dropped.

If that is not interference, then what is it?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve better than innuendo. Therefore, I would remind the member opposite that when legal matters are to be investigated, they are investigated independently by the RCMP. Any decision with respect to laying of charges is made independently by the director of public prosecutions. As the director of public prosecutions made crystal clear yesterday, there was no contact to any member of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada in the determination of these decisions and there was no influence by the Government of Canada.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are the only ones who do not see any interference in this matter. The truth is that the Liberals did not want the contract to go to Davie, so they tried to destroy the career of Vice-Admiral Norman, a man of absolute integrity.

This Prime Minister refused to hand over the evidence to Vice-Admiral Norman, and yesterday his lawyer said that the Prime Minister's Office was even counselling witnesses.

If that is not political interference, then what is?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction]

Mr. Speaker, again, with respect to the court order to produce documents, here are the facts. The Government of Canada met all its obligations with respect to third party record applications. All documents from the priority individuals identified by the defence in February were, in fact, provided to the court. In total, over 8,000 documents on behalf of the seven government organizations were submitted to the court over the course of this process.

It is important to acknowledge that on this matter both the judge and the Crown thanked departmental officials for their excellent co-operation in this process.

Housing

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians across the country are struggling to find a place to call home. We are in the midst of a national housing crisis.

I met a woman who lived in co-op housing and she told me that living in co-op housing meant she was able to build a life, she was able to raise her three kids. Why can the government not understand that we need to build new homes, affordable, non-market, non-profit and co-operative.

Will the government adopt our plan to build half a million new affordable homes across the country?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to answer this question because not only do we have a plan to give every Canadian a safe and affordable place to have a home, but we also have put that plan into place since 2015.

In November 2017, we announced the first-ever national housing strategy, which will give half a million Canadian families a safe and affordable home in the years to come. We know we have a lot more to come, but we are well beyond planning for the future.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, from Burnaby to Montreal, adequate and affordable housing should be a right, but it is increasingly out of reach for too many families.

After three years of Liberal inaction, Canadians are spending more and more to meet their basic housing needs. We have to make different choices to get different results.

Why do the Liberals refuse to adopt our plan to immediately build 500,000 quality affordable housing units?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to be able to repeat my answer. Since 2015, the Liberal Government of Canada has been proud of its work to make the Canadian government a leader and partner on housing again. This leadership had been lacking for far too long.

In November 2017 we launched a national housing strategy that will free half a million Canadian families from living in unacceptable housing conditions all across Canada, far beyond Burnaby and Montreal. We are proud of this plan and we are now very proud to be implementing it.

Justice

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Vice-Admiral Norman's trial has been a disaster from the beginning. Once again, there are serious allegations of interference by the Prime Minister's Office.

The NDP has asked the director of public prosecutions to exercise her right to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate these allegations. We need to restore public trust.

Will the Liberals co-operate with the director of public prosecutions so we can get to the bottom of this?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction]

Mr. Speaker, I quite frankly find it offensive when a member in the House rises and impugns the integrity and reputation of the RCMP and the director of public prosecutions by suggesting they would ever conduct their business in any way that was less than independent.

If the member opposite perhaps did not hear, the director of public prosecutions yesterday repeated that there had been no contact or influence from outside the PPSC either in the initial decision to prosecute or in the subsequent decision to stay the charge.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are clearly avoiding the question. Yesterday we learned crucial information was not just hidden from Vice-Admiral Norman's lawyers, it was even hidden from the prosecution. His lawyer said that the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's Office withheld information, but she did not know why. The only people who can answer why are sitting on the Liberal benches.

Why did the Liberals hide vital information from the prosecution, the defence and from the rest of Canadians?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction]

Mr. Speaker, here are the facts. The government met all of its obligations with respect to third-party record applications. As I have said, all documents from priority individuals as identified by the defence in February were in fact provided to the court.

Over 8,000 documents on behalf of seven government organizations were submitted to the court over the course of this process. The government met its obligations, and the public prosecutor has indicated that there was no inappropriate contact or influence on her decision-making.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about political influence. In the first Liberal cabinet meeting, Scott Brison interfered with a naval shipbuilding contract, and that action leaked out. The Prime Minister had the leak investigated and the Privy Council Office identified 73 people who were aware of the leak.

My question is simple. How many of the 73 names did the Prime Minister or the PCO give to the RCMP to investigate?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is a lawyer and shares the same profession as me. Therefore, he should know that when we investigate a charge, that is done by law enforcement, and in this case the RCMP. He should know that when we lay a charge that it is sent by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, an entity that his party created while in power. Finally, he should know that when a decision is made to withdraw a charge or stay it, that is also done by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.

All of those entities, and all of those steps were taken independently, as they should be in the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, as that member should know, the Prime Minister asked for an investigation of the leak. Seventy-three names were found to have known about the leak, but only one name was handed to the RCMP, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. Without that investigation, he would not have been relieved of command. Without that direction from the Prime Minister's Office, he would not have lost his job, his reputation or have spent two years fighting for the vindication he had yesterday.

Will the member stand in the House and apologize to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman?

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

Mr. Speaker, in different contexts, I have a lot respect for the member opposite for the advocacy he does for the men and women in uniform in the country. However, it is important to underscore that there are men and women in uniform, namely the RCMP, who took charge of the very investigation that the member is impugning. He is impugning the law enforcement officials and the independence of their work.

Who the member should also listen to is not just from our side of the House, but the defence counsel for Admiral Normal who said “The decision to stay this prosecution...was discretion exercised by prosecutors and the (Director of Public Prosecutions), unimpacted by any political considerations, as it should be.”

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Order. The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville needs to calm down.

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing we do know is that former minister Scott Brison stepped down because he did not want to have to answer questions about taking the contract for the Asterix away from the Davie shipyard and handing it over to his buddies.

What is more, the Prime Minister implicated himself by going out of his way to prevent the disclosure of documents. If he really wanted to know the truth, he would have allowed Vice-Admiral Norman's defence team access to all the requested documents, even his own emails.

Does the Prime Minister still believe there was no political interference?

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I will emphasize three key points.

First, the decision to investigate was made by the RCMP. Second, the decision to lay a charge was made by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. Third, the decision to withdraw the charge was also taken by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.

It is also important to note what the director of public prosecutions said in her own words, which is, and I quote:

“No other factors were considered in this decision, nor was there any contact or influence from outside the PPSC, including political—

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

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

Mr. Speaker, is it true that the first decision of the Prime Minister and cabinet was to seek to cancel the Asterix contract, hurt Davie and eliminate 1,000 jobs in the Quebec City region? That was this cabinet's first decision.

They also refused to hand over thousands of pages of documents that were requested by Norman's defence team. The documents that were received recently were redacted. They did not want to provide these document before because they knew full well that the charges would be dropped. They did not want to question important witnesses and it was the Prime Minister himself who asked the RCMP to investigate.

Why are they trying to convince Canadians that there was no political interference?