House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 42% of the vote.
Justice March 1st, 2019
Mr. Speaker, this very important matter was raised in the House by members this morning.
I would like to point out that the objective of the amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada is to eliminate the negative consequences for the employees, customers or retirees of a given company.
The purpose of these amendments to the Criminal Code and all measures we introduce is to protect workers and to convict and make liable the executives of any company.
Justice March 1st, 2019
Mr. Speaker, let us contemplate the reverse scenario. The reverse scenario would be if ministers, upon taking new appointments or changing portfolios, were not briefed. That would impede ministers in the execution of their functions and impede them in serving the public interest.
As I indicated, the minister received briefings on files that relate to his portfolio, as is the standard practice.
Justice March 1st, 2019
Mr. Speaker, upon his appointment, the minister was briefed on numerous files that relate to his portfolio. This is standard practice for all new ministers or ministers who change their portfolios.
Alleged Interference in Justice System February 28th, 2019
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Cariboo—Prince George for contributing to this evening's debate. I will say, at the outset, a couple of refutations and then ask him a question.
First, he mentioned criminality and the breaking of rules. There is no evidence from yesterday's testimony or evidence yet heard by the committee that anything unlawful or criminal occurred.
The member talked about the vigorous questioning by all parties yesterday at the committee hearing as attempts to soil her character. I would put it to him, in fact, that this was committee members doing exactly what they are empowered to do and should be empowered to do, to ask questions of witnesses that appear. I think it is unfortunate.
Mr. Speaker, you, in an intervention, said that language is important in this debate. The member used the term “demoted” and I thought we had gotten past that. Even yesterday the former attorney general said it was an honour for her to serve, however briefly, as Minister of Veterans Affairs.
What I would point out is that the narrative that the member seemed to weave into his comments was that there is an ethical issue. What I put to him is, if that indeed is his true core belief, if that is indeed why he is here at nearly 10 o'clock at night to bring this important motion forward on Thursday, and I salute him for doing that, but if that is indeed the issue, then would not the best forum for getting to the root of what is perceived to be an ethical lapse, the Ethics Commissioner? The Ethics Commissioner could do an investigation and compel witnesses and documents, swear individuals and actually get to the root of this very matter.
Alleged Interference in Justice System February 28th, 2019
Madam Speaker, I have a couple of comments at the outset.
First, there was no evidence of any criminal behaviour. That was actually the testimony from the former attorney general yesterday.
Second, let us be clear, for the record, that any attacks on the character of the member for Vancouver Granville are completely unacceptable. That was stated by the government House leader today. It was stated repeatedly by members and by me in this House last week, and I will state that again on the record.
Third, with respect to sex trafficking in Libya, that is obviously, clearly unacceptable to any member of Parliament.
The point I want to raise with respect to the speech by the member opposite is that he has again indicated that we are talking about the context of these remediation agreements. Let us be clear that what the remediation agreements seek to do is hold responsible those who have actually made decisions at the corporate leadership level and render not responsible those who were not responsible for wrongdoing, such as employees, customers, pensioners and others. I would put to him that this is exactly why these agreements have been incorporated in five of the G7 nations. Does the member agree that these are a useful tool for ensuring that those not responsible are not held accountable for corporate wrongdoing?
Alleged Interference in Justice System February 28th, 2019
Madam Speaker, the NDP, the third party, initiated an ethics investigation. An ethics investigation allows the commissioner to summon witnesses to give evidence, put people under oath and produce documents. That is a robust mechanism that has the same powers as a court of law. Is that indeed an appropriate mechanism, and is that why they selected that to pursue this investigation?
Alleged Interference in Justice System February 28th, 2019
Madam Speaker, the rule of law is sacrosanct, as it must be for all parliamentarians. The rule of law is the foundation of what defines us and separates us from other countries on this planet.
What we have is demonstrable respect for the rule of law in terms of what we have done to empower the committee process: to waive privilege to the fullest extent possible so that the committee can do its work and to participate fully, as the Prime Minister and all relevant parties have indicated they will, with the ethics investigation process. That is as much a part of the rule of law as the committee process, because that is part of the institutions mentioned by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills that make this democracy what it is: a vibrant one, a democratic one and one that respects our institutions.
Alleged Interference in Justice System February 28th, 2019
Madam Speaker, deferred prosecution agreements or, as they are known, remediation agreements in Canada are central to this debate because they focus on exactly what the member has just mentioned, the public interest. That is not a concept that has been picked up in Canada alone. Five members of the G7 now have this regime in their countries: France, Japan, the United States, the U.K. and now Canada.
This is important because, as I mentioned in my opening comments, it ensures that corporate leaders are held responsible for their behaviour and that unwitting and innocent employees and pensioners are not. It does so by requiring them to forfeit assets. It requires them to admit their guilt. It requires them to participate in investigations to show responsibility for their actions.
Those are important aspects that have not been underscored in this debate, and need to be, because the rhetoric from the other side is that some corporate leaders are being let off. That is exactly contrary to what the law says in section 715.31 of the code.
Alleged Interference in Justice System February 28th, 2019
Madam Speaker, the member raised a very important point.
Cabinet confidentiality is similar to solicitor-client privilege. It is crucial to our democracy and to our parliamentary process.
Waiving this privilege so that we may have a fuller discussion and hear testimony on this matter is extremely important. It is historic. The reason it remains limited is because there are two court cases currently under way. Like all members, the members opposite know very well that it is very important not to influence any matters before the courts.
Alleged Interference in Justice System February 28th, 2019
Madam Speaker, I will respond directly to the member for Victoria and say that I was actually quite saddened to learn that he will not be running again. He has made tremendous contributions to this House as a parliamentarian, and we are all better for having him here.
In direct response to what he said, yes, we do share the same alma mater, which is the U of T law school, and I was very interested in what I heard yesterday, but I was not ashamed by what I heard yesterday, because what I heard is: The Prime Minister instructed the former attorney general that it was her decision to take. I heard that the PMO staff said that they did not want to cross any lines. I heard the former attorney general say that it is appropriate to discuss job impacts. I heard her say that nothing unlawful occurred. I heard her say that she was never directed. Most importantly—and I will return to this again and again—she said that the state of our institutions, the rule of law and the independence of prosecutions are intact.