Rémi Massé

[Interim Estimates, March 21st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, that is unfortunate because I am hearing all sorts of accusations being made on the other side of the House. Before they continue to make accusations, I would like to ask you a question. In all honesty, I am here to tell the whole truth. I admit that I was not here the first time that you asked the question. Did you repeat the question following the remarks of the member for Winnipeg North? In all honesty, I could not hear because there was too much noise. I did not have my earpiece in. If you say that you did not repeat the question, then I will be happy to withdraw my vote because I was not here the first time you asked.

[Interim Estimates, March 21st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to clarify one thing.

There was a lot of noise in the House, and I was not wearing my earpiece. After my colleague's remarks, did—

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that my colleague's French is excellent. She expresses herself very well in French and I would like to congratulate her.

As I was saying earlier, when the former attorney general testified, she stated that the Prime Minister told her that the decision was hers to make. That is important because it was up to her to make it.

She also stated that the staff of the Prime Minister's Office said that it did not want to cross any lines. She even added that it was appropriate to discuss any job impacts and to consider a series of factors. Ultimately, the former attorney general made the decision not to move forward and, in our view, it is clear that the law was obeyed at every step of the process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the member opposite that in a democracy, it is important to engage in consultations and discussions before any decision is made.

Sometimes, on this side of the House, we have robust discussions, but these are important so that we can look at all of the facts and make an informed decision.

I think this is part of our job as members of Parliament, parliamentary secretaries or ministers to get a wide range of opinions. Some opinions are often more insistent than others, and this is how we are able to make informed decisions.

The answer to me is clear. In a situation like this, it makes sense to hold consultations and discussions to arrive at an informed decision. The former minister of justice and attorney general was clear when she testified before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We never did anything illegal. Nothing illegal was done here.

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

Mr. Speaker, they will be especially proud to hear this applause. I will go on.

A general directive must be preceded by a consultation with the director of public prosecutions. The Attorney General may, after consulting the director of public prosecutions, assume conduct of the prosecution. This is also done through a transparent process in which the Attorney General must publish a notice of intent to assume conduct of a prosecution in the Canada Gazette.

As far as obtaining comments from other individuals in the exercise of his or her power to issue directives or assume conduct of a prosecution under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, it is appropriate for the Attorney General to consult his or her cabinet colleagues before exercising these powers. These consultations are often important, because they help the Attorney General understand points of view that are not limited to a specific case. However, the final decision to issue directives or assume conduct of a prosecution is up to the Attorney General. In any case, it is important that the Attorney General be able to consult his or her cabinet colleagues on matters related to prosecution, but that he or she not receive instructions on criminal matters from cabinet colleagues or anyone else.

The Supreme Court found that, in the course of his or her duties, the Attorney General acts in the public interest and is protected from the influence of political and other undue aggravating factors by the principle of independence. From the beginning, the Prime Minister has clearly stated that he and his staff always acted appropriately and professionally. As the Prime Minister said, we completely disagree with the former attorney general's characterization of events.

Our government will always focus on jobs, growing the middle class and strengthening our economy. That is an important aspect of this discussion, because we, on this side of the House, will always stand up for Canadian workers and job creation. That is what we are accomplishing with the agenda we have put in place. Over 800,000 jobs have been created over the past three years, and the unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in 40 years. In my riding, over 221 jobs have been created, which has created an important economic dynamic. We are very proud of that. Our objective has always been to defend jobs.

Obviously, the possible loss of 9,000 jobs in communities across Canada has come up in today's discussion, and it is the Prime Minister's job to always stand up for the interests of Canadian workers.

From the beginning, the Prime Minister has clearly stated that he and his staff always acted appropriately and professionally. As the Prime Minister said, we disagree with the former attorney general's characterization of events.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Spadina—Fort York.

Under the Department of Justice Act, the Minister of Justice is also the Attorney General of Canada. The two positions are distinct, even though they are held by the same person.

As the holder of both positions, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada has four main roles. First, the minister is the official legal adviser to the Government of Canada. Second, the minister is responsible for laws and policies relating to the justice portfolio. Third, the minister represents the Crown in all civil litigation. Fourth, the minister is the attorney general for all federal prosecutions.

The Minister of Justice is the official legal adviser to the Governor General and the legal expert in cabinet. As such, the minister of justice is responsible for ensuring that the administration of justice under federal jurisdiction is in accordance with the law. As Attorney General, that same minister is responsible for advising the heads of the several departments of the government on all matters of law connected with the departments.

Legal advice is always given independently. The legal advice of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General is based solely on the law, doctrine and applicable jurisprudence. The principles of law are the only relevant considerations when providing legal advice. That is part of the unique experience of the minister's mandate and of the department supporting him or her. Although the constitution of the client departments, agencies and sometimes other departments may be required to establish the facts, the context and underlying political objectives of the request for advice and the legal advice itself must be provided without partisan or political influence.

The Minister of Justice is also responsible for laws and policies relating to the justice portfolio. Like other ministers, when the justice minister creates a policy, he or she works closely with certain cabinet colleagues or the Privy Council Office to ensure that these initiatives are aligned with the government's legislative agenda. In accordance with the Department of Justice Act, the Attorney General of Canada is responsible for any litigation involving the Crown or the departments.

In the conduct of civil litigation, the Attorney General does not have exclusive decision-making power over litigation positions. In civil litigation, sifting through the available and viable legal arguments to determine the position to take in a given case often involves a high level of policy. In that sense, civil litigation is markedly different from criminal litigation.

The entire government is elected to determine what is in the public interest. The Attorney General is responsible for defending cabinet's public policy decisions before the civil courts, thereby helping the government to meet the objectives it was elected on. Provided these decisions seek to adopt a valid legal position, it is appropriate for the Attorney General to adopt such a position. If not, this could be perceived as a lack of solidarity with cabinet, an important aspect of the constitutional convention of collective ministerial responsibility to Parliament.

However, as far as his role in prosecutions is concerned, the Attorney General must act independently, not taking any orders from anyone, as an attorney general in England declared in 1925. More precisely, the Attorney General must act independently of partisan considerations. The Supreme Court determined that this was a fundamental constitutional principle of our democratic government.

Identifying those who need to be prosecuted for crimes and determining sentences should be based on evidence alone and on the proper administration of criminal law. However, it is advisable for the Attorney General to be informed of the relevant context. Let me repeat that because it is important: it is advisable for the Attorney General to be informed of the relevant context, including the potential consequences of a given prosecution. This may give rise to a need to discuss matters with colleagues.

In 2006, the Director of Public Prosecutions Act created an independent entity known as the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. The act enshrined the role of the Attorney General in federal prosecutions by giving the director of public prosecutions the power to initiate and conduct prosecutions. The director acts as the deputy attorney general of Canada when initiating and conducting federal prosecutions on behalf of the Attorney General.

In most cases, the Attorney General will not be involved in the decision-making process with respect to prosecution. However, the Director of Public Prosecutions Act requires the director to inform the Attorney General of any prosecution that raises important questions of general interest. The act therefore guarantees that the Attorney General will be informed of any important criminal matters, and nothing prevents the Attorney General from discussing them with his or her cabinet colleagues.

The Attorney General can issue directives to the director of public prosecutions that may be general or pertain to specific prosecutions. When a directive is issued, it is issued through a totally transparent process. It is published in the Canada Gazette and accessible to all Canadians.

As an aside, I would like to thank the public servants who work for the Canada Gazette. It is an important institution that has existed for 178 years. During my many years as a federal public servant, I had the good fortune of heading up the Canada Gazette for a few years. I am particularly proud of all the public servants who work there and who ensure that that institution remains vibrant and crucial to our democratic system.

[Innovation, Science and Economic Development, February 28th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from Brossard—Saint-Lambert for her excellent question.

This morning, the Prime Minister was in Saint-Hubert to announce an investment of more than $2 billion in Canada's space program. This historic investment is part of Canada's new partnership in the lunar gateway project.

This NASA-led project will make it possible to return to the moon and to prepare for more thorough exploration of Mars. This partnership provides new opportunities for our astronauts to participate in space missions and for our scientists to conduct groundbreaking research. Our investments will create hundreds of well-paid jobs and make it possible for Canadian explorers—

[Employment, February 22nd, 2019]

Madam Speaker, the government believes that Canadians who have lived quiet, dedicated lives deserve peace of mind in retirement. I would like to point out that our government has created more than 800,000 jobs through the platform it has implemented over the past three years. Canada's unemployment rate is among the lowest in decades, and our government continues to help create good jobs for Canadians, for families, so that they can feel secure and safe.

[French Language, February 6th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, we will never apologize for speaking French in the House.

I want to remind my colleagues that the first French words were heard in the new continent when Jacques Cartier set foot in Gaspé and met the Mi'kmaq nation in July 1534 .

Our language is a living language here and around the world. The Francophonie has 90 member states representing 284 million individuals who speak French. French is a vibrant language, it is a beautiful language, it is our language and the language of both our ancestors and our children. It represents and defines who we are as a country.

Franco-Ontarians have been attacked by the Ford government, and the Conservatives opposite criticized my colleague yesterday for speaking French in the House.

We will never apologize for speaking French. I am proud of my language and my culture, and I am proud to be part of a government that defends the French language.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to acknowledge my colleague for speaking French at the beginning of her speech. She did a great job, and I think it is important to acknowledge that.

The figures she mentioned come from the Fraser Institute. However, she left out some important details. The Canada child benefit was not taken into account in this analysis. The Canada child benefit has made a huge difference back home. People tell me they are getting an extra $2,000, tax free. This is a lot.

She also forgot to mention that during nine of the 10 years that the Harper government was in power, that government ran significant deficits. One of these deficits was among the largest in modern Canadian history. It was $56 billion for a single year. The Conservatives added $150 billion to the deficit during this period.

The Canada child benefit is having a positive impact on our families and has helped thousands of children out of poverty, so why did she and her party vote against this important measure introduced by our government?