Leona Alleslev

[Justice, February 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, luckily, on this side of the House, I have the opportunity to speak.

The question is simple. Has any current or former cabinet minister or member of the Prime Minister's staff been contacted by the RCMP on this scandal?

[Justice, February 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's most trusted adviser has now resigned over the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

I swore an oath to serve and defend this country, as did many of my colleagues on both sides of the House. This is not about partisan politics. It is about trust in our democracy and a judicial system—

[Justice, February 7th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, that was a carefully scripted response, but at the same time, pressure can come in many forms outside of merely direction. The evidence is mounting, and the Prime Minister's responses are not adding up. Actions speak louder than words, and Canadians deserve the truth.

The former attorney general spoke truth to power, but maybe the Prime Minister cannot handle the truth. Did the Prime Minister fire the former attorney general for defending the independence of Canada's judiciary?

[Justice, February 7th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, these are shocking allegations that the Prime Minister appears to have fired his attorney general for refusing to politically interfere in an ongoing criminal prosecution. Did her refusal to favour the Prime Minister's friends cost her her job? Canadians deserve clear answers to these serious allegations. Did the Prime Minister fire his attorney general because she spoke truth to power?

[Divorce Act, February 6th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, this is an important philosophical debate, particularly coming from the Minister of Justice.

Anyone knows that justice is about due process. It is about the structure that we put in place for a trial, for a jury to review things and then for a bill to come into law.

The minister used the argument that this legislation was overly debated at committee, that amendments were made. That is the role of committee to debate amendments, but that does not in any way detract from the purpose of debate in the House.

Then the minister used the argument that the bill was 20 years coming. Clearly then perhaps the legislation should have been brought in earlier. However, by no means does that support the argument for shortening the period of time it is debated at each stage in the House of Commons. It undermines the very purpose of the House of Commons. If we do not need time to debate an important bill in the House of Commons at each phase, then what is the purpose of us being here?

The minister is focusing on the area of consensus, but, again, that is not the point of debate in the House of Commons. It is around those things on which we do not agree.

How can the minister justify shortening the important process of time and the very nature of debate on such important legislation such as the Divorce Act.

[Public Safety, February 5th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, that is not a plan to take our national security seriously. Last year, the House adopted a Conservative motion calling for a comprehensive strategy to bring Canadians who have committed acts of terrorism for ISIS to justice, but the Liberal response was a total failure.

The Liberals continue to ignore our allies in the face of this global security threat, making Canadians pay for their mistakes. Why will the government not take this seriously and bring these terrorists to justice?

[Public Safety, February 5th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the U.S. State Department urged its allies to bring home and prosecute its citizens currently held in Syria who committed terrorist acts for ISIS. Although ISIS has been reduced and destabilized in the region, our allies remain concerned that it could re-emerge. The Liberals have been deafening in their silence on how they plan to deal with Canadians who have committed terrorist acts for ISIS.

What is the government's plan to bring these terrorists to justice?

[Finance, February 4th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister thinks Canadians do not care about how the government manages the country's finances, but that is simply not true. Canadians have said the number one priority should be to manage Canada's finances and balance the budget.

The Prime Minister promised Canadians in the last election that he would balance the budget this year, but he had no intention of keeping his word. The Canadian deficit keeps getting bigger and is forecast to hit $31 billion this year. Higher deficits today mean program and job cuts, higher taxes and pension risk tomorrow. The Liberals do not understand the hardship this causes for families. For the first time, Canadians are just getting by and not getting ahead.

On how he runs his own finances, the Prime Minister said, “I no longer have dealings with the way our family fortune is managed”. He is out of touch and does not care. We are all paying for his mistakes.

[Ethics, January 31st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, that was not an answer to the question I asked, so I will ask it again.

Did anyone within the Prime Minister's Office ever have discussions about delaying the trial of Vice-Admiral Norman?

[Ethics, January 31st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, there was a case of déjà vu in an Ottawa courtroom today when a former Kathleen Wynne and current Liberal staffer was asking questions about lost emails. She appears to have been referring to Vice-Admiral Norman as a “certain naval officer” in an attempt to sabotage his defence. This deliberate attempt to sabotage access to information requests is a political attack on Vice-Admiral Norman's right to a fair trial.

Did anyone within the Prime Minister's Office ever have discussions about delaying the trial of Vice-Admiral Norman?