Arif Virani

[Business of Supply, February 19th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I want to clarify a couple of things in response to the member for Elmwood—Transcona.

In putting aside the notion that we are not concerned about jobs, independent of the lowest unemployment rate in 41 years and the fact that we have created 800,000 jobs, I think it is important to clarify that subsection 715.34(1) of the Criminal Code, which actually addresses the remediation agreements my colleague was speaking about, talks about requiring an admission of guilt, forfeiture of any benefit, payment of a penalty, payment of restitution, a change in behaviour and co-operation with any further investigation. I think that needs to be clearly stated, for the record.

Second, the member opposite, if I heard him correctly, said that the ethics investigation is too narrow. What the ethics investigation actually allows for is the power of the commissioner to summon witnesses and to require those witnesses to give evidence orally or in writing, under oath or affirmation, and to produce any documents or things that are necessary. In these investigations and in this format, the commissioner has the same powers as a court of record

Given that mechanism and those significant powers, I would put it to the member that this is precisely why his party initiated an ethics investigation and why it was agreed to by the ethics investigator. Is that no longer the member opposite's position? Does he question the validity of that process and the independence of the ethics investigator?

[Business of Supply, February 19th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I have one clarification. My understanding is that there was indeed improper funding of money to both the Conservative Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada by SNC-Lavalin, but every single amount of those monies has been returned. That is important to state for the record.

The second point is that my friend, the member for Windsor West, has indicated a lack of transparency. I want to again outline for the House that there was a one-year consultation on the remediation agreement. It is flagged in the budget and it is presented in the budget bill. That budget bill is debated in this chamber. It goes before three different committees, finance, justice and a Senate committee, and then it is gazetted.

The third point is that I know the member opposite to be a fierce defender of the rights of workers and the rights of labour and that is important. In the context of that, where remediation agreements allow us to look after prosecuting the corporate leaderships and holding them accountable so that the workers under them, who are not responsible for the leadership decisions, are able to maintain their place of employment, is a remediation agreement in that context useful and is that the reason why it has been done in five members of the G7 thus far?

[Business of Supply, February 19th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I want to raise two points and then ask the member a question. First, I agree with him completely that the member for Vancouver Granville acquitted herself extremely well and with distinction as a minister in her time serving and in her work with the justice committee, of which he was a part.

The second point I raise is that it is important the record clearly reflect what was decided at the justice committee. By vote at the justice committee last Wednesday, it was decided to undertake hearings into three specific areas: the issue of remediation agreements, the issue of the Shawcross doctrine and the issue of calling witnesses in public to address what was at issue with respect to the allegations.

With respect to the ethics investigation taking place, it has significant powers such as compelling evidence, compelling documents and enforcement similar to a court of law. That investigation was initiated by the NDP. Does the member continue to believe in the independence of the ethics investigator and in the validity of that investigation?

[Business of Supply, February 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I have two comments and a question.

The member for Edmonton Strathcona lamented the lack of transparency in the context of this bill. I just want to make sure that the record reflects that one year of consultations took place in respect of this very issue of remediation agreements. First, the matter was flagged in the budget. Second, the matter was presented in the budget bill. Third, it was studied by no fewer than three parliamentary committees: the finance committee, which she alluded to; the justice committee, on November 7; and the Senate committee. Fourth, it was gazetted.

In terms of an observation, remediation agreements are not an invention of this Parliament. They exist among five members of the G7 now, France, Japan, the United States, the U.K. and Canada, as well as in two other international jurisdictions.

The point I want to raise with the hon. member is the issue of the ethics investigation, which was actually requested by the party opposite that is moving this motion, the party that member represents. It sought that ethics investigation because some of the powers of the ethics investigator include the power to command evidence orally, in writing or under oath; the power to produce documents and have them produce anything the commissioner considers necessary; and the ability to enforce those powers in such a manner that the commissioner has the same powers as a court of record.

Are those the reasons the Ethics Commissioner was solicited by the NDP? Now, in this House, does the member for Edmonton Strathcona question the independence of that ethics investigator?

[Business of Supply, February 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I have one comment and one question for my friend opposite, the member for Essex.

She talked about the transparency of the process, lamenting the fact that there was not enough transparency from her perspective. What I would put out there are five points for the purpose of this debate.

There was a one-year consultation process on remediation agreements. The remediation agreements were flagged in the budget. They were implemented in the budget implementation bill. That bill was then studied in three parliamentary committees, justice and finance in the House of Commons, and in the Senate. Then the matter was gazetted.

With respect to my friend opposite, I know she is concerned about trade and I know she is also concerned about fairness for workers. I would put this to her. Five members of the G7 with whom we trade have implemented remediation agreements. We have a mechanism to give prosecutors additional tools to use on how they proceed so they can hold corporate leaders responsible, including admissions of guilt, fines, penalties and forfeiture and not directly impact the livelihoods of the workers who the member and her party advocate for in the chamber. Is that a useful tool, one for harmonizing our relationship with our other trading partners and for ensuring the livelihoods of the workers in the province of Quebec and throughout Canada are not disproportionately impacted?

[Business of Supply, February 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his comments.

I would like to ask him a question concerning his constituents and the importance of the economy in the province of Quebec and across Canada.

During today's debate, we have already discussed the economic consequences of a remediation agreement.

I have outlined that remediation agreements are actually becoming very much the norm throughout the world. They have been in place since the 1990s in the United States. They exist in France, Singapore, Japan and in the United Kingdom.

We have a remediation agreement that exists now, and that remediation agreement includes things such as specific aspects of culpability of the potential corporate offender: an admission of guilt, forfeiting of any benefit, paying a penalty, paying restitution, implementing a change of behaviour and co-operating with any further investigations.

Is that the type of mechanism that can assist in addressing corporate malfeasance but at the same time ensure that the workers in his riding and in his province, and indeed throughout this country, are not affected disproportionately by corporate malfeasance in a given case?

[Business of Supply, February 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his contributions at the justice committee, of which he is a very important member.

I have one comment and then one question. The comment relates to the fact that much discussion has been made today in the context of the debate thus far about where the remediation agreements come from and how the process was done.

The consultations that took place on remediation agreements were one year long. They were then announced in the budget and introduced in a budget bill, and that bill was then put before both the finance committee and, interestingly, in front of the justice committee, of which my friend is a member. It was most recently on November 7 that remediation agreements were before that committee for consideration.

I want to talk about the Forcese article that the member mentioned. I have read it myself, and it is very illustrative, but since the justice committee has agreed to pursue a study not just of the Shawcross doctrine but also of remediation agreements and to hear from witnesses, is that not precisely the type of study that needs to take place? Precisely in light of the contributions he has made today with respect to the Forcese article and in explaining what the Shawcross doctrine does and does not include, is that the kind of robust study that he wants to see at the justice committee, and would Craig Forcese be a good witness to hear from in the context of that study itself?

[Business of Supply, February 19th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I will start with a comment and then two questions.

The comment would be apropos the previous speech given by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who actually failed to answer in French. Therefore, I will ask again in English. What did he actually say at the SNC meeting and what is his position on remediation agreements?

The member opposite has just implored us to listen to our constituents. I would appreciate it if my colleagues would listen to me right now. However, what constituents have said to me, time and time again, is that there is too much partisanship in this place. What they have said to me is that we need a more robust mechanism for shining a light on truth and getting to the bottom of matters.

The point is this. Does the member opposite, after sharing her commentary, agree that actually ascertaining the truth in this matter would be better sought and pursued through a robust mechanism employed by the ethics investigator, who is not subject to the political whims of this place or other fora?

[Business of Supply, February 19th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, with respect to my reference to litigation privilege, if the member was listening over the din of conversation during my 20-minute intervention, he would have noted that I talked about many types of privilege. I also talked about common interest privilege, for example. It was in the context of discussing solicitor-client privilege and outlining its contours.

Is there an implied waiver that exists right now? As I said in my opening intervention, that would need to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

In respect of whether anyone has been asked to retain documents, I have absolutely no information whatsoever in that regard.

[Business of Supply, February 19th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, the Ethics Commissioner's investigation is important.

First of all, the actual investigation was sought by the opposition and was agreed to on the part of the Ethics Commissioner.

Second, the Ethics Commissioner is independent of any of the parties in the chamber. The Ethics Commissioner is appointed by Parliament and responds to Parliament. The Ethics Commissioner also has more robust mechanisms, including the powers of subpoena, of compelling documents and of compelling information from individuals.

Most important, the Ethics Commissioner operates outside of what is, unfortunately, some of the political theatre that surrounds us in what we do, which Canadians are now seeing even in the context of today's debate. Partisanship is part of this process, which we all knew when we signed up to run for office. However, sometimes partisanship is not the best antidote for what is clearly an important question Canadians are seeking clarity on. In that context, a non-partisan, apolitical investigation, led by a person without political affiliation, outside the realm of theatre, is likely much more appropriate and will provide a much more measured response.