Murray Rankin

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary spoke about the importance of two processes that are under way: the first, the justice committee; and the second, the review inquiry by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

At the justice committee, he talked about how that committee is “master of its own agenda”, but of course the Liberals have a majority on that committee. Canadians need to know that when we tried to get more witnesses to attend, including Gerry Butts, Mr. Bouchard and Jessica Prince, they voted that down, saying that we should wait and see what the former attorney general has to say.

As to what she can say, the new Attorney General came and said that solicitor-client privilege is very complex, and the member just said today that we are still studying that, etc. It is hard for us to understand that, since the clerk himself, after 30-some years of experience, said in an answer to me that he had concluded that solicitor-client privilege did not even apply in these circumstances.

It is very murky as to how the justice committee is going to get to the bottom of this. As for the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, we know very well that the complaint is about section 9, where a decision of another person to improperly further another person's private interests is at stake.

This may not even apply in these circumstances at all based on past practice.

Would the hon. parliamentary secretary not agree that we need a public inquiry to get to the bottom of this?

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, in light of what the leader of the opposition said to us about the decision having been made by the director of public prosecutions, and then about subsequent efforts by the Prime Minister, by the clerk and by people in the Prime Minister's Office to change her mind, could this possibly be anything but an attempt to interfere with the independent decision of first the director of public prosecutions and then the former attorney general, who refused to budge?

Does the hon. member see this as improper interference, in violation of the independent role that our Constitution requires the Attorney General to play?

[Justice, February 22nd, 2019]

Madam Speaker, there were 50 meetings between executives of a company at the highest levels of the Liberal government, and an engineering company meeting on what? Justice issues. That is time the Prime Minister could have spent finding real solutions to our housing crisis, fighting to make medication more inexpensive for Canadians and helping the people in the country who are only $200 away from not being able to pay their bills.

When the Liberal government has rich friends knocking at the door, boy does it find time to meet them. However, when Canadians need help, they are told to wait. Why will Liberals not just come clean and tell us who they are really working for?

[Justice, February 22nd, 2019]

Madam Speaker, when the former attorney general was fired, she emphasized the need for an independent judicial system. Why?

When the Prime Minister's chief adviser Gerry Butts resigned, he highlighted the former attorney general. Why?

When the former attorney general stood in the House this week, she asked to be allowed to speak her truth. Why?

Why will the Prime Minister not let her speak her truth and let Canadians get to the bottom of all this?

[Justice, February 20th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Liberals on the justice committee refused to ensure that people from the Prime Minister's Office would testify; not Gerry Butts and not the other officials who held dozens of meetings with SNC-Lavalin to discuss criminal charges.

How will Canadians get to the truth, if the Liberals refuse to invite people at the centre of this mess, and if the Prime Minister refuses to waive privilege to let the former attorney general tell her story?

He kept saying sunshine is the best disinfectant, so why is he content keeping Canadians in the dark?

[Justice, February 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, we have spent the day urging the Prime Minister to waive any solicitor-client privilege that may exist here and allow the former attorney general to speak to troubling allegations of alleged political interference.

Within the hour, the justice committee will meet to discuss witnesses. The Liberal members on that committee will have the chance to do the right thing. Canadians deserve answers.

Does the Prime Minister not agree that the justice committee, at a minimum, must hear from those at the centre of the story: the officials in the Prime Minister's Office—Mr. Bouchard, Mr. Butts, and others—as well as the former attorney general?

[Business of Supply, February 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary spent a lot of time talking about the solicitor-client privilege issue, which I concede and agree with him is a constitutionalized matter in our Constitution.

However, there is another constitutional convention. According to the late Marc Rosenberg of the Ontario Court of Appeal, it is the most important constitutional convention. He said, “Although the Attorney General is a cabinet minister, he or she acts independently of the cabinet in the exercise of the prosecution function.”

We have these two principles at stake, and the solicitor-client privilege to which he refers would appear to have nothing to do with whether or not the former attorney general was pressured to take a certain position, solicitor-client privilege being about the advice a lawyer gives to a client. It is a bit of a stretch, therefore, to understand whether it exists here or whether it has not been waived because of the Prime Minister's comments to the media.

In a contest between these two constitutional conventions, is the most important one not that Canadians be assured that our rule of law system exists and that there be no political interference with the exercise of prosecutorial discretion?

[Business of Supply, February 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton and I have put forward motions that would allow for certain people to come and testify and for certain records to be produced. I am not yet prepared to conclude that the committee, which he and I have the honour of being vice-chair on, will not do its job. We will find out today. I live in hope.

[Business of Supply, February 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I understand there were dozens of meetings with the Prime Minister's Office and officials and that there was a well-known meeting between the then attorney general and the principal secretary, Mr. Butts, which has been recorded as well.

I believe this massive company had lobbied a lot of people. I am told that one of my colleagues and the leader of the New Democratic Party met at the end of a meeting involving business leaders where this issue was raised, according to one report in the lobbyist registry. Indeed, we are told that the official opposition leader also met with that company.

However, my position on the remediation agreement, with all due respect, is utterly irrelevant. I have indicated in my remarks that I think there could be a purpose for them, but that is not what is at issue here. It is not the issue at all. Nice try in trying to change the channel.

[Business of Supply, February 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hochelaga talks about being far away in her riding. I must point out that it is not that far to Montreal from here. It is a little farther to Victoria.

However, I put forward an emergency motion precisely for the reason about which the member for Wellington—Halton Hills talked. We are an important institution, a committee that has the responsibility to get to the bottom of this should do so.

We have called for a public inquiry and we know how long that will take and how many rocks it will turn over. However, what we need to do right away is get it to the committee, have the protagonists speak, learn what the rules are and then see whether those rules were transgressed on behalf of the Canadian public, and in public. That was the purpose of the emergency motion. I hope that when the committee resumes this afternoon, its members will see it in that manner.