Lisa Raitt

[Justice, April 10th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister seeks to be judge, jury and executioner in this matter when, quite frankly, he is using a notice of libel as a tool of intimidation, much like he has done for this entire case.

He states that it is a fact that the Leader of the Opposition is indeed spreading mistruths. Our fact is that is not the case. Guess who gets to decide that? A real court.

When will the Prime Minister bring this to the right place to debate, a court of law in the province of Ontario? When will he start the claim?

[Justice, April 10th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, politics aside, the Prime Minister has left something very much open, and it is the response that he has to the notice of libel that he sent to the Leader of the Opposition.

Now, he may not be aware of this, but a notice of libel is for the benefit of the defendant to be able to mitigate his damages by apologizing, if he sees fit. In this case, the Leader of the Opposition has indicated that he has nothing to apologize for.

It is now in the hands of the Prime Minister. When will the Prime Minister start the statement of claim?

[Justice, April 9th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I will give some free advice to the Prime Minister. Yes, there has been a notice sent over, and the Leader of the Opposition has indicated that he stands by every single word in that press release. That is a problem for the Prime Minister. Therefore, I guess the ball is actually in his court.

He can stand up here, wave his arms around and talk about putting us on notice, but why does he not actually show us? Let us get it on.

[Justice, April 9th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I have a piece of paper too. It is misinformation the Prime Minister gave both during the last election and more recently. Let us start with balanced budgets, or maybe electoral reform or maybe the $10-billion deficit, all things that were promised to Canadians that did not come about.

Then we have the most recent crucial issues, for example, the Prime Minister indicating that the former attorney general never went to him about her concerns. We know that to be patently false.

Let us test this in court. When will the Prime Minister start this action?

[Justice, April 9th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, for two months, the Prime Minister has been avoiding accountability in his involvement in the SNC-Lavalin corruption scandal, which has been engulfing his government now for months.

Now he has indicated that he wishes to sue the Leader of the Opposition for the criticisms that the leader made. Let us get the ball rolling. The reason being is, quite frankly, that these allegations can be tested in court, a place the Prime Minister cannot shut down.

Would the Prime Minister tell us when he will commence the action?

[Party Membership, April 3rd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, trust goes both ways, does it not? I think that is something the Prime Minister needs to remember.

Women are quite often whistle-blowers, and I will explain why. For many years we were not part of boardrooms. We sat on the sidelines of what happens in the corporate boardroom and in legislatures. As a result, we are uniquely placed to see when ethical lapses are happening. We also do have the courage to step up and speak when we need to.

The Prime Minister may believe that he has dealt with this by throwing two people out of the Liberal Party, but many more courageous women are here, and they are here today, and they are watching. What does the Prime Minister have to say to them?

[Party Membership, April 3rd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, in 2002, three women appeared on the cover of Time magazine as persons of the year. They were whistle-blowers. They took risks to reveal illegal or unethical practices in their own organizations. These women inspired me when I was a young lawyer in 2002.

Today we have two more women who are probably very inspiring for women across this country. These women also took risks to speak their truth, and they were thrown out the door of the Liberal Party.

Why has the Prime Minister decided that whistle-blowers need to be punished and not appreciated?

[Points of Order, April 2nd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There were two different answers given with respect to whether the rule of law was discussed at the justice committee. In one response, the House leader indicated that it was a decision, that the justice committee “concluded”, on the rule of law. In the second answer, she indicated that it was “confirmed” at committee.

I just want to make sure that Hansard reflects the truth, and it is important because of this. The House is receiving information from the committee indicating what the result of the committee was. It is incorrect information if it is about what the committee concluded, because there are no motions and there are no reports to back up what the House leader has said. Therefore, I would suggest that we review Hansard and make sure that if she wishes to say “confirmed”, that is fine, but if she says “concluded”, it is erroneous and should not be in Hansard.

[Justice, April 2nd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the House leader is completely incorrect. The justice committee did not make a finding that the rule of law was followed. She should withdraw that remark because that is misleading.

If they want to talk about playing politics, the former attorney general testified that on September 17:

...the Prime Minister jumped in, stressing that there is an election in Quebec and that “and I am an MP in Quebec—the member for Papineau”.

On January 7, we learned this is how the Prime Minister concluded, that after an election, everything is fresh again.

This is all about politics. How can the House leader answer all these questions—

[Justice, April 2nd, 2019]

I will get the next question.