Arif Virani

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member opposite, but I would like to point out one thing and ask him a question.

First of all, this is the second time in a row that it has been said that the course of justice had already been established on September 4. The member for Carleton also made that statement in his comments.

This is effectively stating that the course of justice had been set as of September 4.

Mr. Wernick was asked this very question about discussions that were appropriate, as he described them, with the former minister of justice after September 4. He said that they were indeed lawful and appropriate in the course of having discussions between the Prime Minister's Office and in and amongst cabinet members.

The illogic of the position that has been outlined by two Conservative members is really quite stark. There are things that are known as attorney general directives, and those attorney general directives sometimes apply to litigation that is already in the courts. One was put out with respect to indigenous litigation and one with respect to HIV litigation. I just put that out there to outline the illogic of the position being articulated on the opposition benches.

The question I have relates to where the member finished his speech with respect to the ethics investigator. We know that the ethics investigator has the power to summon witnesses and the power to require them to provide evidence under oath. The ethics investigator also has the power to require those witnesses to produce documents. For the purpose of enforcing those powers, the ethics investigator has the same power as a court of record.

Is it the position of the member opposite that the ethics investigator is not an independent forum that cannot find the answers that he seeks?

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes for his contribution to today's debate, and also again welcome him to the justice committee. I will, however, point out a couple of clarifications and ask him a question.

The clarification is in respect of the rhetoric that was used by the member opposite about obstruction of justice triggering penal liability. For Canadians who are watching this debate, there is a very good reason why politicians are not the ones who direct law enforcement officials to make decisions about whom to arrest and whom to charge. That is simply because those decisions are based on evidence. They are not based on partisan considerations.

Let us review the evidence that we have before us. We have evidence from the Prime Minister that there was never any direction to the former attorney general. We have that evidence being confirmed at the actual committee that the member opposite attended, where the Clerk of the Privy Council said, “At every opportunity verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was the decision for the Minister of Justice to take.”

This is at least the third, if not the fourth time I have heard members of his party refer to exactly what transpired in January as a firing or as a demotion. When an individual, including a cabinet minister, has the opportunity to serve brave men and women who have nobly and courageously fought for this country, overseas and on this continent, how can that possibly be construed as a firing or as a demotion?

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, if evidence is needed on the part of the other side as to the liberties of individual government members to vote as they see fit, we can look to the actual results of the vote on the motion previously presented by the New Democratic Party, in which there were some dissenting government voices heard.

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few responses to the intervention by the member opposite. First of all, the statement he is referring to, which arose from the earliest iteration of the justice committee hearings during the constituency week, was clarified by the member for Edmonton Centre in French later on during those very same hearings. I urge the member opposite to consult that part of Hansard.

I will confess that I have a tremendous amount of respect for the member opposite and his contributions in this chamber. However, I find it a little particular, and perhaps even a bit rich, for that comment to be coming from that member, because the track record of the previous government was to completely manhandle and manipulate committees, using parliamentary secretaries such as me for that purpose. In fact, that is precisely why we campaigned on a platform to change the role of parliamentary secretaries and why they are much more constrained in their behaviour.

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his contributions to today's debate, his contributions generally in this chamber, as well as his significant contributions at the justice committee.

In terms of responding to the point just raised, first of all, it is absolutely correct that there is a majority of government members at that committee, as there is at the majority of committees in this chamber. That is set, as I mentioned in my opening statement, pursuant to the rules of the chamber, which is that the representation in committees reflects representation in the chamber.

What I would indicate to the member opposite, and he would know this very well, as I mentioned earlier that there are many lawyers in this chamber, is that Mr. Wernick gave a response in committee. That response speaks for itself. However, the former attorney general has said it is “layered” and complex when you assess issues of privilege and confidence.

There is not just one issue at stake; there are actually four issues. The first is solicitor-client privilege, and we have heard the member opposite and Mr. Wernick in that regard. The second is the duty that any lawyer owes to their client. The third is the issue of cabinet confidence. The fourth is the issue of litigation privilege, and, as I mentioned earlier, there are two ongoing court cases. All four of those components need to be assessed, evaluated and analyzed before a robust and accurate understanding can be made in terms of what applies here and what can be disclosed to the public.

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his compliments on my French. It is very important to acknowledge our country's official bilingualism.

As part of this debate, he first mentioned that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights made the important decision to hear from a number of people, including the former minister of justice and attorney general of Canada.

Second, he talked about the testimony Mr. Wernick gave before the committee a few days ago. Mr. Wernick gave the same answer as the current Attorney General, namely that the conversations were appropriate. The clerk indicated that those kinds of conversations take place between ministers on a daily basis and said that not only are they appropriate, but that the Prime Minister clearly said it was up to the justice minister to make that decision.

That is the kind of testimony the committee has heard. The members on this side of the House believe that we need to let the committee conduct its own investigation.

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to some of the matters raised in the motion of the member opposite. I want to commence my statements by two comments, which are simply to underscore the important contributions that have been made to government and the Government of Canada by two very distinct Canadians.

First, the member for Vancouver Granville has served as a minister and attorney general as well as the minister of Veterans Affairs, and has made terrific and incredible contributions. I would reiterate my personal alarm about the comments that were made about the member for Vancouver Granville and the attacks that were made about her and her character.

Second, are the contributions made by the former principal secretary to the Prime Minister, his belief in public service and dedicating his work to the cause of all Canadians.

We know two processes are already under way to investigate the alleged allegations referenced in the motion. First, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights began hearing witnesses on this issue on Thursday, February 21, in response to a motion that was initiated. Second, the Ethics Commissioner is conducting an investigation, as we speak. That was also initiated by members of the opposition.

There is every reason to believe that these two mechanisms, one composed of Canada's elected representatives and one representing a non-partisan perspective, are up to the task of considering the very questions that are being asked by Canadians and by the members on the other side of the aisle.

With that in mind, it would be beneficial to begin by discussing the rules, responsibilities and powers of the justice committee in its review of this matter in addition to what the committee has already heard and what witnesses it will hear from.

As with other large deliberative assemblies, the House of Commons has taken advantage of the greater flexibility available in committees to carry out functions that can be better performed in smaller groups, including the examination of witnesses and detailed consideration of legislation, estimates and technical matters. Committee work provides detailed information to parliamentarians on issues of concern to the electorate and, as we well know, often provokes important public debate.

In addition, because committees interact directly with the public, they provide an immediate and visible conduit between elected representatives and Canadians. Committees are extensions of the House, created by either standing or special orders, and are limited in their powers by the authority delegated to them. For House of Commons committees, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs establishes a list of members of the various standing committees at the start of each session and during the course of a session, if necessary. This list takes effect once it is approved by the House. As stipulated in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, most standing committees have 10 members. Party representation on committees reflects the party standings in the House.

Committees can gather the information necessary for their studies in a number of ways, including by hearing testimony during meetings, accepting briefs and written opinions, requesting the production of documents, organizing round tables and visiting locations. Most often, committees gather information on a particular subject by hearing from witnesses and consulting briefs. With the exception of standing joint committees and certain standing committees, the Standing Orders set out a general mandate for all standing committees. They are empowered to study and report to the House on all matters relating to the mandate, organization, management and operation of the departments assigned to them by the House.

More specifically, they can review and report on the statute law relating to the departments assigned to them; the program and policy objectives of those departments and the effectiveness of their implementation thereof; the immediate, medium and long-term expenditure plans of those departments and the effectiveness of the implementation thereof; and an analysis of the relative success of those departments in meeting their objectives.

In addition to this general mandate, other matters are routinely referred by the House to its standing committees, such as bills, estimates, order in council appointments, documents tabled in the House pursuant to statute, and specific matters which the House wishes to have studied.

In each case, the House chooses the most appropriate committee on the basis of its mandate.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has the power to review and report on the policies, programs, and expenditure plans of the Department of Justice.

As hon. members know, the department has the mandate to support the dual roles of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, the chief law officer of the Crown. The committee also has the power to study the policies, programs and legislation of the following entities: the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada, the Courts Administration Service, the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.

In particular, the committee may review proposed amendments to federal legislation relating to certain aspects of the criminal law, family law, human rights law, and the administration of justice, notably with respect to the following statutes: the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Divorce Act, the Civil Marriage Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Judges Act, the Courts Administration Service Act and the Supreme Court Act.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights may also undertake studies on subjects related to its mandate, either as referred to it by the House of Commons or on its own initiative. For example, they recently conducted a study on juror mental health, and prior to that, they conducted a study on human trafficking in Canada.

In the course of a study, the committee holds public meetings, considers evidence from witnesses, and reviews written submissions and other authoritative documents. In the case of their human trafficking study, they also travelled across Canada to hold private sessions with witnesses who were uncomfortable testifying in a public forum. This enabled them to hear from witnesses that they otherwise might not have been able to hear from but whose testimony was crucial to their study.

At the conclusion of a study, the committee usually reports its findings and makes recommendations. The committee may request a government response within 120 days.

As we know, the committee met on Thursday, February 21, and heard from the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general of Canada, Madame Nathalie Drouin, as well as the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Michael Wernick. All of these witnesses provided helpful information at committee to assist it, and Canadians generally, to understand the scenario addressed in the member's motion we are debating today, in addition to the roles and responsibilities of the Attorney General of Canada.

For example, when asked if it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials to discuss the matter in question with the Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General, in his testimony, confirmed, “Those kinds of conversations would be appropriate”. Mr. Wernick, as Clerk of the Privy Council, reiterated this view in his own testimony later the same day.

When asked about conversations with cabinet colleagues in his role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and whether they were appropriate, the Attorney General of Canada answered, “Absolutely”.

As the Prime Minister has indicated, he is seeking the counsel of the Attorney General of Canada regarding the issue of solicitor-client privilege. The Attorney General has assured Canadians that he is seized with the urgency of this matter and is seeking the best approach to provide transparency to Canadians and fairness to the former attorney general in a way that does not compromise solicitor-client or litigation privilege.

To that end, solicitor-client privilege is an exceedingly important part of Canada's legal system and should only be waived in the appropriate circumstances.

It is a protection that allows lawyers across this country, many of whom find seats in this very chamber, to engage on the toughest issues known in law and provide their clients with candid and comprehensive advice. This includes the current Attorney General of Canada who is the government's lawyer. The Attorney General must be allowed to provide that advice to the Prime Minister and would be unable to do so in a candid and comprehensive manner if solicitor-client privilege were waived.

As the former attorney general, the member for Vancouver Granville, has stated, the issue of solicitor-client privilege is complex and layered. That is why the current Attorney General is studying carefully the very best approach to provide transparency to Canadians and fairness to the former attorney general in a way that does not compromise solicitor-client privilege or litigation privilege, which is important to underscore as there are currently not one but two pending litigation matters involving SNC-Lavalin before Canadian courts.

Madame Nathalie Drouin, the deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general of Canada, helpfully explained in her testimony before the committee last week that “The Attorney General is supported by the DPP, the director of public prosecutions. Please note that the DPP is also a deputy attorney general of Canada. The DPP is responsible for initiating and conducting federal criminal prosecutions on behalf of the Crown.”

During his important testimony before the committee last week, the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Michael Wernick, whom I previously referenced, indicated that on February 12 the director of public prosecutions issued the following statement, which can be found on the director's website: “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 testimony of Mr. Michael Wernick was especially helpful in light of his decades of service as a senior public servant under both Conservative and Liberal governments. As the Prime Minister has stated, this, “leaves him well positioned to understand what our institutions are grounded in and make sure we are doing the right things as a government” and “He is someone we need to heed very carefully when he chooses to express himself publicly”.

Mr. Wernick went on at that committee. I will reiterate it for the purposes of the record of today's debate. He stated, “If you boil it down for Canadians as to what is going on here with the facts that we have and all of the facts that I know from my participation in meetings and conversations, we are discussing lawful advocacy”.

Again, I am quoting Mr. Michael Wernick, the Clerk of the Privy Council of Canada, the most senior civil servant in this country. He went on to say that his view “very firmly” was that the conversations with the former minister of justice and attorney general of Canada “were entirely appropriate, lawful, legal.”

We know that after the justice committee's in-camera meeting of February 19 of this year, the committee members announced that they will be calling the former minister of justice and attorney general of Canada, the member for Vancouver Granville, as well as several academics to appear before the committee and give testimony. Those hearings are expected to take place this very week. The committee may well then decide to hear from more witnesses, as is its jurisdiction and its purview.

Under the Liberal government, committees are masters of their own agenda. Committees of this House do exemplary work. Everyone in this chamber recognizes that because everyone in this chamber, save for cabinet members, participates in that committee work. We are confident that the committee meetings will continue to be thoroughly and fairly conducted and will provide Canadians with the answers and information that they seek.

In the remaining portion of my time, I want to address the Ethics Commissioner's investigation. I turn briefly now to the study that will be conducted by the Ethics Commissioner.

Under the Conflict of Interest Act, a member of the Senate or House of Commons who has reasonable grounds to believe that a public officer holder, which includes the Prime Minister, has contravened the act may in writing request that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner examine the matter.

In conducting this kind of investigation, the commissioner has many powers. First is the power to summon witnesses and require them, first, “to give evidence—orally or in writing—on oath” or “on affirmation”, and second, “to produce any documents and things that the Commissioner considers necessary.”

For the purposes of enforcing these powers, the commissioner has the same powers as a court of record in civil cases. The subject of the complaint also has the opportunity to make submissions to the commissioner.

The commissioner is required to provide the Prime Minister with a report setting out the facts in question, as well as the commissioner's analysis and conclusions in relation to the request made by a parliamentarian. The report is to be provided to the person who made the request, the public office holder who is the subject of the request, and the public.

The commissioner may not include in the report any information that he or she is required to keep confidential, unless the information is essential for the purposes of establishing the grounds for any conclusion in a report.

As I have explained, these two processes are already under way. Both are investigating the allegations raised by the motion that is before us today. I am entirely confident that these two processes will be thoroughly and fairly conducted and will provide Canadians with the answers and information they seek. There is every reason to believe that these two groups are up to the task of considering the questions that are being asked.

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for his contributions this morning. I want to clarify one point and then ask him a question.

He made some mention of the testimony from the Clerk of the Privy Council at committee last week. What specifically the clerk said was, “At every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was the decision for the Minister of Justice to take.”

First, the committee has commenced a study. Second, the committee has called the former minister of justice and attorney general of Canada. Third, the committee has also said that subsequent to hearing testimony, it will revisit the issue as to whether to call subsequent witnesses, and which ones.

Given that lay of the land and given that the committee is undertaking this important study, I ask the member opposite why he expresses distrust in allowing the committee to simply continue to do its work.

[Canada Elections Act, February 21st, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions and as the member of Parliament for Parkdale—High Park to speak to the second reading of Bill C-406, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

This bill, which was introduced by the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, seeks to amend the Canada Elections Act to prohibit foreign contributions to third parties for election advertising purposes.

The spirit of Bill C-406 is part of a broader conversation regarding the role of money in Canadian politics and the potential for foreign actors to influence Canadian elections. The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs issued a report last year expressing concern that the Canada Elections Act did not “...sufficiently protect Canadian elections from improper foreign interference”. That said, the report further argued that the third party regime needed to be modernized to ensure transparency and fairness in our democratic system.

Our government takes this issue very seriously, and it is a pleasure to be addressing this topic in the House this evening.

When it comes to the issue of foreign interference and influence more generally, we are taking a whole-of-government approach to protect the integrity of our democracy by defending the Canadian electoral process from hacking and malicious cyber-activities.

More frequently than ever before, we are learning in the media about how western democracies are dealing with new types of threats and new types of attacks. There have been allegations of undue foreign interference in the British Brexit referendum, the United States' 2016 presidential election and the French 2016 presidential election, to name but a few. Canadians are rightly concerned about the potential impact of foreign interference in our elections as well.

I have heard from the engaged residents of my riding of Parkdale—High Park, and indeed from Canadians from around the country, that we cannot be complacent. In 2019, we need to anticipate and ward off the threat of foreign interference in order to secure and strengthen our democracy.

This is why our government recently announced its plan to safeguard the upcoming election. The plan is built on four pillars. One is enhancing citizen preparedness. The second is improving organizational readiness. The third is combatting foreign interference, and the fourth is working with social media platforms. In particular, Canada's security agencies will work to prevent covert, clandestine or criminal activities by foreign actors.

I would like to remind members of this House that Canada also has a robust political financing regime. We know that to date there is no evidence that foreign actors have unduly influenced previous elections in this country. As a result, Canadians can feel confident in the outcome of our past elections and in our democracy as a whole, but that does not mean we will rest on our laurels. To the contrary, we are being vigilant to address potential threats. Our government has already taken action to address potential avenues of undue influence in advance of the upcoming 2019 federal election.

In addition to the government's recent announcement, our government has passed Bill C-76, the Elections Modernization Act, which received royal assent on December 13 of last year. The Elections Modernization Act strengthens Canada's democratic institutions and restores Canadians' trust and participation in our democratic processes. This generational overhaul of the Canada Elections Act will allow it to better address the realities facing our democratic system in the 21st century, including requiring organizations selling advertising spaces to not knowingly accept election advertisements from foreign entities.

Our legislation draws heavily on the recommendations in the Chief Electoral Officer's report on the 2015 general election and on studies by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

The member for Red Deer—Lacombe opposite has already outlined a number of measures in Bill C-406, measures that are redundant when one considers Bill C-76. This is because Bill C-406 has already been considered by our government as part of the Minister of Democratic Institutions' commitment to review spending limits for both political parties and third parties.

This review also examined third party financing and the potential impacts of foreign contributions and interference in Canada.

While Bill C-406's objective of preventing foreign interference in Canadian elections is worthy in principle, the mechanisms outlined in this legislation would be ineffective.

Allow me to explain. A major issue with Bill C-406 is that it seeks to legislate the actions of people outside Canada, such as foreign entities or persons making a contribution to a Canadian third party. These provisions have an extraterritorial aspect, which would be extremely difficult to enforce. We know of these difficulties from other acts that have attempted to legislate actions outside of Canada.

It is clear that the measures in Bill C-76 are enforceable, whereas those in Bill C-406 are problematic, because Bill C-76 addresses the problem from a different perspective. While Bill C-406 seeks to prohibit someone outside of Canada from contributing to a third party, Bill C-76, which has received royal assent, prohibits Canadian third parties from using these contributions. In this way, the problem of foreign influence is brought under the umbrella of our established domestic regulatory regime for third parties.

There are also a number of unfortunate drafting errors in the bill, which would further make the argument that the provisions are difficult to enforce. In one case, the bill refers to subsection 363(1.1) of the Canada Elections Act, which is a provision that does not exist in either the act or in Bill C-76. As well, while the bill creates two new prohibitions on foreign contributions, it neglects to enact corresponding offences, which would lead to significant enforcement difficulties. The two must go hand in hand, and the latter is absent here. There are no corresponding offences listed in the bill.

Further, Bill C-406 misplaces the new rules regarding third party election advertising in part 18 of the Canada Elections Act, the part that deals with financial administration of political entities, instead of placing them in part 17 of the act, which deals with third party election advertising. This would lead to confusion for Canadians and political actors about which sections of the Canada Elections Act apply to which entities.

I would like to mention that certain measures in Bill C-76 that have to do with foreign interference were strengthened by amendments adopted by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. When Bill C-406 was introduced in June 2018, the measures in Bill C-76 had not yet been improved by the committee's meticulous work.

Bill C-76 initially only limited the prohibition against using foreign funds to an election period, something I mentioned in my first contribution to this debate. However, there is now a new provision that stipulates there is no explicit time limit to this prohibition, thanks to helpful amendments brought forward at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This change brought Bill C-76 in line with the measures introduced in Bill C-406, which also do not stipulate any time limit. Canadians can therefore be assured that foreign influence will be guarded against at any time, rather than only during the pre-writ or writ periods of an election.

Strengthening and protecting our democratic institutions should not be a partisan issue. On that, there is agreement. In Canada, our free and fair elections contribute to our strong democracy, which is revered around the world. Canadians rightfully expect their elected officials to come together and work hard to ensure our elections are accessible and we are doing our utmost to ensure foreign money has no place in our elections, which is essential to the health of our democracy.

I want to thank the member for Red Deer—Lacombe for the chance to continue this important discussion on foreign influence in our elections. We can expect that Canadians will become more interested in this topic in the lead-up to the federal election this fall.

To conclude, while Bill C-406 identifies an important issue for Canadians, the tools the bill proposes cannot be effectively enforced, which is why the government will not be supporting Bill C-406.

[Canada Elections Act, February 21st, 2019]

Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House agree wholeheartedly with the objective and the principle of the bill and what it targets, which is interference with elections that must be safeguarded here in the House.

I have a couple of clarifications I would like to make.

The member mentioned that Bill C-76, which had the same objective, is being studied in the Senate right now. The bill actually received royal assent on December 13, 2018. Therefore, Bill C-76 is now official law in Canada.

I want to make a couple of points in respect to Bill C-76.

At the time the member's legislation was originally given first reading, Bill C-76 was in committee where it was subsequently strengthened. The original incarnation of the bill talked about only prohibiting the use of foreign funds during an election period. However, helpful amendments made at PROC made it illegal for a third party to use foreign funding at any time to engage in partisan activities, bringing it into line with the very bill that he has proposed today.

Does the member agree with the changes made in committee?

Also, with respect to the extraterritorial aspect of the legislation he is now proposing, it presents a difficulty in enforcement. Does the member recognize that limitation with respect to the enforcement of this bill?