John Nater

[Alleged Interference in Justice System, February 28th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the only job the Prime Minister is trying to save was his own. That was it. Because of that, he and his office and the Clerk of the Privy Council undertook a sustained and an inappropriate effort to pressure the former attorney general of Canada to interfere in a criminal prosecution. It is wrong.

[Alleged Interference in Justice System, February 28th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I had the great honour and privilege to study under Mr. Arthur Kroeger, a man who many may not know but was considered the dean of deputy ministers, someone of the highest esteem. I think if he were alive today, he would be disgusted by the actions that are undertaken today.

Integrity, respect, non-partisanship are the values of our public service. Those are the values that we as Canadians, we as parliamentarians expect from a non-partisan public service, from a public service that is fearless in its advice, but loyal in its implementation. Unfortunately, the Clerk of the Privy Council has failed in those duties, and he must resign.

[Alleged Interference in Justice System, February 28th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, let me throw it back to the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, who seems to be willing to nitpick little parts of it, and yet his own Prime Minister is unwilling to accept the word of a distinguished parliamentarian, a distinguished former attorney general. She said very clearly that she was influenced in her role as attorney general in an inappropriate effort to secure a deferred prosecution. She was influenced by a concerted effort by the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Office and by the Clerk of the Privy Council to change her mind and to interfere with the independent director of public prosecutions. It is wrong.

[Alleged Interference in Justice System, February 28th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, Hansard and the Journals will record this debate as having been on alleged political interference regarding a remediation agreement. I am not sure who decides the titles of these debates, but this is not accurate. This is not about a remediation agreement.

This is about the Prime Minister and his staff politically interfering in a criminal proceeding. The Prime Minister and his staff, over a period of a number of months, pressured, on multiple occasions, the Attorney General of Canada to change her mind, to change her mind and then to direct the director of public prosecutions to enter into a remediation agreement, to halt criminal proceedings.

The director of public prosecutions is independent for a reason. The Attorney General of Canada acts independently for a reason, because of the rule of law, because we as Canadians live in a country that is governed on the rule of law.

Yesterday, that belief was shaken. In her testimony the former attorney general said this, “I experienced a consistent and sustained effort by many people within the government to seek to politically interfere in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in my role as the Attorney General of Canada in an inappropriate effort to secure a deferred prosecution agreement with SNC-Lavalin.”

Last night, the Prime Minister, in his press conference in Montreal, said that he completely disagrees with the former attorney general's comments. He completely disagreed with what she had to say, only to say, in almost the same breath, that he had not actually seen the entire testimony yet, but disagreed with what she said. How could he have stated that, having not even seen the testimony?

Is it perhaps that he had landed on his most recent narrative and he was not prepared to let the facts and the truth get in the way of this current narrative, a narrative that we all know keeps changing, about whose fault it really is. At one point it was the fault of the former attorney general. It was the fault of the director of public prosecutions. It was the fault of the Conservative Party at one point. It was the fault of Stephen Harper in some way. Of course, it was the fault of Scott Brison.

I understand that the Prime Minister will be once again shuffling his cabinet tomorrow morning, because he seems to be so good at it. We have to wonder if the Liberals are not begging and pleading with Scott Brison to un-resign, to try to fix all this, but I simply do not see that happening. The fact of the matter is that the fault rests with one person, the fault rests with the Prime Minister of Canada.

The Prime Minister allowed a culture to develop that allowed this feeling of appropriateness. He allowed a culture to develop where it was okay to interfere with the course of justice. What is even more troubling is that he allowed this culture, this culture where it was felt that it was appropriate to interfere with the course of justice, to permeate the public service of Canada.

I wish I could say I am surprised, but from day one, the Liberal government has worked to undermine the neutrality of the public service. From day one, it booted the Clerk of the Privy Council, Janice Charette. The Liberals kicked her out. Then, just before Christmas, right after the Liberals were elected, hoping that no one would notice, they appointed Matthew Mendelsohn to a high-ranking position within the Privy Council Office, Matthew Mendelsohn of Dalton McGuinty fame.

Then, of course, we see the actions of the Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick. Public servants are guided by the values and ethics code for the public service, in which it states:

Public servants shall serve the public interest by:

Acting at all times with integrity, and in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that may not be fully satisfied by simply acting within the law.

The Prime Minister allowed the Clerk of the Privy Council to fail in this duty. In fact, in her testimony yesterday, the former attorney general said this of her meeting of September 17, “Then, to my surprise, the clerk started to make the case for the need for a DPA. He said, 'There is a board meeting on Thursday, September 20th, with stockholders.'”

Why is the Clerk of the Privy Council concerned about the shareholders of a private corporation? This is beyond the pale. It was not simply a slip of the tongue. In the December 29 meeting, he once again spoke about the company's board and the possibility of it selling out to someone else. Again, why is the Clerk of the Privy Council talking about shareholders of a private corporation?

I, like many politicians, receive emails from Canadians across the country and earlier this morning I received one from an expert on parliamentary governments, a man whose name is associated with many texts and who, in this very House, is recognized as an authority in this place. He wrote to me via email and expressed the concern about how the Clerk of the Privy Council dealt with current deputy ministers. The questions remain. Has the clerk recused himself on this matter or is he still involved in overseeing the public service and deputy ministers on this very matter? What actions is the clerk taking today in relation to the deputy minister of justice and the deputy attorney general of Canada? This must be answered.

The Clerk of the Privy Council also informed the former attorney general, “I think he is going to find a way”, he being the Prime Minister, “to get it done, one way or another. He is in that kind of mood, and I wanted you to be aware of it.” The Prime Minister thought he did find a way. He dropped her as attorney general. He dropped her, but not before the deputy was informed by the clerk of this, “On January 11, 2019, the Friday before the shuffle, my former deputy minister was called by the Clerk and told that the shuffle was happening and that she would be getting a new minister. As part of this conversation the Clerk told the deputy that one of the first conversations the new minister will be expected to have with the Prime Minister would be on SNC Lavalin, in other words, that the new minister would be prepared to speak to the Prime Minister on this file.”

Just moments ago, iPolitics reported, in fact, shortly after the current Attorney General was appointed, that he was briefed on the SNC-Lavalin case. This in spite of the fact that the Public Prosecution Service had already made up its mind. This after the fact that the former attorney general made up her mind. What is more, iPolitics is also reporting that the Attorney General met with unnamed members of the Prime Minister's Office on this issue.

The Liberals just do not learn. Interfering with the independence of the former attorney general and attempting to get her to interfere with the independent director of public prosecutions is wrong, and yet the Liberals are still trying to cover up. The Prime Minister is still holding cabinet confidence over the time that the former attorney general continued to serve in cabinet, which begs the question. What more are the Liberals trying to hide?

The Liberals have shaken the belief of Canadians in the independence of our judiciary and on the rule of law.

I will conclude by citing what was reported yesterday as having been said by Katie Telford, the Prime Minister's chief of staff. She is reported as having said, “We don't want to debate legalities anymore.” We on this side will debate legalities. We on this side will stand up for the independence of the judiciary. We on this side, in the Conservative Party of Canada, will stand on the side of the rule of law and ensure that we get answers from the Liberals on this unacceptable practice when it comes to interference in the course of justice.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, February 26th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for Bow River for doing a great job of illustrating some of the concerns he has with the legislation.

I would ask my friend and colleague what specific recommendations he might have made going forward that would have improved the bill but, unfortunately, were not listened to at report stage or were not listened to when making amendments.

[Petitions, February 20th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table a petition signed by a number of residents of Ontario, calling on the government for the speedy passage of Bill S-240, which is now here in the House of Commons. It deals with the very serious issue of the trafficking of human organs and would make it a criminal offence to go abroad to obtain an organ that has not been legally acquired.

[Darren More, February 20th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes a tragedy can give way to a glimmer of hope. Last July, 43-year-old Darren More was tragically killed by a drug-impaired driver. He left behind his wonderful family: his wife, Pam, and three children, Daphne, Clayton and Jasper. He was dedicated to his family, and this was very clear in his advocacy for rare diseases. His son Jasper is living with MPS 6. This drove Darren to work with The Isaac Foundation, which provides support and hope for families living with this disease.

To honour Darren, the community came together in Palmerston on Monday's Family Day to host Darren's Day. The events included a sno-pitch tournament, games of shinny, a plunger toss, and an intense fire-truck-pulling competition between the Minto Fire Department and the Wellington County OPP. All the funds raised will benefit local community projects, including Minto minor sports and Crime Stoppers Guelph Wellington.

Let Darren's commitment to his family and our community be an example for us all.

[Justice, February 8th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, again, all through question period today, we have asked a very simple question of the attorney general and of his parliamentary secretary. We still have not had an answer.

We know that Gerald Butts met with the former attorney general to discuss the SNC-Lavalin issue. The very simple question for the attorney general is this. Did that discussion include a special deal for the SNC-Lavalin company, yes or no?

[Justice, February 8th, 2019]

Again, Mr. Speaker, that was not the question.

The former attorney general said very clearly, “It is a pillar of our democracy that our system of justice be free from even the perception of political interference”, yet we know from the lobbyists commissioner that over a dozen times, SNC-Lavalin met with members of the Prime Minister's Office, including principal secretary Gerry Butts.

The Prime Minister says that sunshine is the best disinfectant, so let us shine some sunlight on this issue. Did the Prime Minister's Office discuss a special deal for SNC-Lavalin with the former attorney general, yes or no?

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, what a wonderful question from the hon. member for Red Deer—Mountain View. He is quite right about following the path that was laid out by the Conservative government, through Jim Flaherty and Joe Oliver. They had a long-term plan to ensure that Canada had the economic capacity and fiscal space to pay down the debt long term and invest in the priorities of Canadians long term.

We have seen the Liberals spend and spend with nothing to show. Their long proposed infrastructure investments have failed to move the needle on economic growth. Why? Because they are not investing in the priorities of Canadians. They are not implementing infrastructure projects in ridings like mine and in communities across the country. They are not making it happen. Canadians know better.

We on the Conservative side remain committed to working on behalf of Canadian families and taxpayers in ensuring we have a long-term plan so our fiscal house is in order for future generations.