2019-02-20

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?

Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon the Prime Minister to provide some transparency in this very serious scandal. These are major allegations of interference in an independent prosecution.Outside of an investigation by the RCMP, the only way for the Prime Minister to clear the air is by having a public inquiry. Canadians are tired of taking his word for his version of events. They are tired of Liberals getting together with other Liberals to come up with a storyline they will then try to hide behind.Yes or no, will the Prime Minister agree to holding a public inquiry so Canadians can get answers to these questions right—

Mr. Speaker, people who are innocent usually do not have trouble answering simple questions, especially when they are yes or no answers.Gerald Butts claims to be innocent, but innocent people do not tend to resign from their jobs. Did the Prime Minister ask Mr. Butts to resign, yes or no?

Fair enough; they do stand up for jobs, Mr. Speaker, the jobs of lobbyists. He is led around by the nose by lobbyists. The question is if he is willing to obstruct justice to help his lobbyist friends. Oh, to live in the tawdry but very elite world of Gerry Butts and the Prime Minister.Was it Gerry's idea to strong-arm the justice department to help their insider friends? No wonder he does not want Gerry Butts testifying at committee. Will the Prime Minister agree to allow Gerry Butts and his staff to testify under oath, so we can get to the bottom? By the way, is he willing to testify?

Mr. Speaker, to move forward from what?The Prime Minister is saying nothing happened. All along he has been saying nothing improper was done. All along he has been saying he did not do anything wrong and people in his office did not do anything wrong, yet we have the facts that the former attorney general was removed from her post and then resigned from cabinet, and the principal secretary has now resigned.What exactly was Mr. Butts moving on from if nothing improper happened?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Nelson White from Akwesasne First Nation has invested a lot of his own money to fund the White Pine Healing lodge to support those in his community who suffer from addiction. The project was created as a response to the state of emergency due to the alarming rate of suicide and substance abuse. He has the support of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne. The government keeps saying that it is a good project, but without funding in the coming weeks, there will be no healing lodge. Will the government deliver the money or will it let down the people of Akwesasne?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot hold up the independence of the office of the director of public prosecutions and, at the same time, interfere and attempt to get a reversal of a decision.The decision on SNC-Lavalin was made on September 4. The Prime Minister had a meeting with the former attorney general on September 17. Gerald Butts had a meeting with the former attorney general on December 5.Why would the Prime Minister have so many meetings with the former attorney general if it were not to try to reverse a decision that had already been made?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just expressed his confidence in the justice committee's work to get to the bottom of this very serious scandal. Last week the government instructed Liberal members of that committee to block Conservative and NDP attempts to get a full witness list in front of the committee. The members of the committee admitted that they received that list from government offices.Therefore, if the Prime Minister has so much confidence in the justice committee's work, will he allow Gerald Butts to testify under oath at that very committee?

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we look forward to the work that will be done by the justice committee and, indeed, by the Ethics Commissioner on this matter.It is extremely important that Canadians get to hear all the facts. We will continue to make sure we are standing up for good jobs right across the country and upholding the independence of our judicial system. That is something that Canadians expect; that is something that we expect.In terms of waiving privilege, that is not a simple matter, and that is why we have asked the Attorney General for advice on this, because we know there is a danger of unintended consequences on the two court cases currently going through on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, Gerald Butts' statement speaks for itself. He made this decision because he felt it was important for the government to move forward. His dedication to this country, to this government, and to the work we are doing to give a real and fair chance to everyone to succeed continues. I thank him deeply for his service to Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite have been talking an awful lot about solicitor-client privilege. It is also important to understand that discussions among the federal cabinet are covered by cabinet confidentiality as well. This is the work that we are doing to make sure we are delivering for Canadians in terms of good jobs, in terms of economic growth, in terms of opportunities for all, while at the same time upholding the independence of our judiciary, the integrity of our democratic institutions, and we will always do that.

Again, Mr. Speaker, if he has done nothing wrong, he should be able to answer. Meetings at the Chateau Laurier between Gerald Butts and the former attorney general are not covered by cabinet confidentiality. He should be able to tell Canadians, if he has done nothing wrong, if he has not interfered in an ongoing criminal prosecution case. Has he ever told the former attorney general that he favoured a special deal for SNC-Lavalin, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, after being lobbied by SNC-Lavalin, the government changed the Criminal Code and tried to cut a deal to avoid a trial. Two former SNC-Lavalin executives just had their corruption cases thrown out of court because of unrealistic delays, and we learned that SNC has received more than $2 billion in government aid since 2002.Will the Prime Minister recognize that crony capitalism is an unjust system that must be eradicated?

Mr. Speaker, what day is this? Oh, it is Wednesday. It is a new day, a new excuse, a new bombshell in the Gerry Butts-SNC scandal, and this one is a doozy.It turns out that the Prime Minister met with the justice minister after they found out that the independent public prosecution would not give the free get-out-of-jail card to SNC. I wonder what happened in that meeting, because it would represent a major interference in the independence of Canada's justice system.Therefore, will the Prime Minister give us a full airing, and agree to an independent inquiry where his staff will be forced to testify?

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister told his caucus that any communication coming from Mr. Butts should be considered as coming from the Prime Minister himself. Once again, when did the Prime Minister become aware of the December 5 meeting between Gerald Butts and the former attorney general?

Mr. Speaker, it was Manitoba's turn to suffer a massive derailment involving flammable substances. With trains getting longer and running more frequently, and with deregulation on the rise, another tragedy like that of Lac-Mégantic could still happen. That much is clear. Residents are worried. They do not want to experience another tragedy like that. The Minister of Transport is all talk and no action. Could the Prime Minister direct his minister to get to work on rail safety in order to protect Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is certainly not acting like someone who is innocent of these serious allegations. Once again, on September 17, he admitted that he had a meeting with the former attorney general. Canada's top prosecutor had already decided, with her independent analysis, that SNC-Lavalin was not entitled to a special deal.Once again, who asked for the meeting? There are only two options. It was either the Prime Minister or the former attorney general. Which was it?

Mr. Speaker, speaking of the rule of law, a new report reveals the government has abjectly failed to consult indigenous peoples on recovery strategies for threatened species. Chief Byron Louis has shared, “The extinction of a species actually has the potential” to extinguish indigenous rights. Frustrated with government inaction, the Mikisew Cree sought intervention by UNESCO, and has joined the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation court to have their rights upheld.When will the Prime Minister stop with the platitudes and actually deliver on his legal responsibilities to first nations?

Mr. Speaker, once again, I have tremendous confidence in the members of the justice committee, who will be moving forward on the investigation of all sides; and indeed in the Ethics Commissioner, who has taken this matter under investigation.At the same time, I want to, once again, thank Gerry Butts for his contributions to Canada. His letter of resignation speaks for itself. He continues to believe deeply in what this government, and this country, is doing to help everyone.

Mr. Speaker, during the December 5 meeting between Gerald Butts and the former attorney general, it is reported that Mr. Butts told her to go and see the Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick. Now, if the decision had already been made by the independent top prosecutor in Canada on September 4 and if the Prime Minister had already indicated that it was the attorney general's decision to be made, why would she have to go and visit the Clerk of the Privy Council?

Mr. Speaker, here is what we know. The director of public prosecutions formally rejected a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin on September 4. The Prime Minister met with the former justice minister two weeks later on September 17 to discuss the matter. The day after that meeting, SNC-Lavalin lobbyists met with no fewer than four ministers and senior officials. What a coincidence.With a remediation agreement ruled out, why was that meeting between the Prime Minister and the former justice minister necessary? Can the Prime Minister explain the lobbying blitz that followed?

Mr. Speaker, on Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, we are following the path provided for by the courts in the right way. The courts said we needed to do better on consulting indigenous peoples and on evaluating the impact on marine shipping. That is exactly what we are doing.The Conservative approach for 10 years failed to get our exports to new markets. That is why we knew we needed to do it in the right way, which includes an oceans protection plan that means a faster spill response, more towing capacity and a plan to protect marine mammals. We are continuing to fight climate change with a plan to put a price on pollution. That is what is this government is doing.

Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to ascertain is whether there was political interference in a legal matter.We have many questions but have been given few answers to date. What we do have are many versions of what happened. The Prime Minister gave not one, two or three versions, but five versions.The former justice minister has not been able to give us her version because she is bound by client-solicitor privilege, which the Prime Minister refuses to waive. Members could not stop laughing yesterday when he stated with a straight face that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which is dominated by a Liberal majority, is non-partisan. It is obvious that only an independent inquiry will get to the bottom of this matter. When will they—

Mr. Speaker, again, that was not the question. This is key to this entire affair of allegations of interference in a criminal proceeding. The Prime Minister, through an omnibus bill, gave the top prosecutor the option of using a deferred prosecution agreement, and she ruled, in her independent manner, that SNC-Lavalin did not qualify.At any point in time since that decision, has the Prime Minister expressed his support for this kind of deal for SNC-Lavalin, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to breaking promises to Canadians, we have to hand it to the Prime Minister. Right now on the Trans Mountain pipeline fiasco he is doing a two-for-one deal. First, he promised to end all fossil fuel subsidies, but dumping $4.5 billion of our money on a 65-year old pipeline was not enough. Now the pipeline-owning Prime Minister wants a further $2 billion subsidy from Canadians. Then the Liberals promised that all pipelines would receive a climate change review as part of their approval.However, here is a new guide for Canadians when listening to the Prime Minister. Listen closely and know that the truth is the opposite. When is he going to stop helping out his friends and start working to fight climate change?

Mr. Speaker, On December 5, when Gerald Butts met with the attorney general at a hotel in downtown Ottawa, it is clear that the SNC-Lavalin case was discussed. Who asked for that meeting?

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to the work that both the Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee of parliamentarians will be doing on this matter, but I can assure all Canadians that unlike the Leader of the Opposition, we will always stand up for good jobs right across this country, every step of the way, while making sure we respect the independence of our judicial system.

Mr. Speaker, our government works in an ongoing fashion to make sure that we are standing up for good jobs right across the country and doing it in respect of the independence of our judicial system and the robustness of the rule of law. That is something all Canadians expect of us, that we fight for their jobs right across the country. We will always do that. It is telling right now that we see the Conservatives saying that they will not. They do not stand up for good jobs across this country. They do not stand up for good jobs wherever they are. We will continue to do so and we will do so in a way that respects the rule of law, that respects the independence of our judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, it is so telling that the Prime Minister cannot even answer this kind of simple question. These are not the actions and this is not the behaviour of someone who is innocent of what he is being accused of. On September 4, the independent director of public prosecutions made a decision. The Prime Minister and his team then went to work and had several meetings with the former attorney general. In any of those meetings, did he ever and will he today indicate whether or not he supports SNC-Lavalin getting a special deal, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, every step of the way, we will stand up for good jobs for Canadians. We will stand up for the independence of our judiciary and the rule of law. The trust Canadians have in their institutions is extremely important to us. That is why we look forward to the processes under way, both at the justice committee and indeed at the Ethics Commissioner investigation, so Canadians can continue to have full confidence in our democracy and the institutions that serve them.

Mr. Speaker, the respect we have for our justice system is extremely important. That is why we are carefully considering the issue of solicitor-client privilege. That is why I asked our Attorney General for advice on how to proceed in this matter so that we can give people the opportunity to speak. It is important that Canadians hear the truth.That being said, it is important to understand that there is a real danger of unintended negative consequences on the two cases currently before the courts.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals promised to put an end to fossil fuel subsidies, but they obviously have not.To make matters worse, they spent $4.5 billion on an old pipeline.The Liberals also promised that a climate impact assessment would be conducted for all energy projects. Now, we have learned that no such assessment will be carried out for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. I have a little tip for voters. Any time the Prime Minister promises to do something, they should expect him to do the opposite.Do the Liberals realize that they are beginning to look more and more like Pinocchio when it comes to the fight against climate change?

Mr. Speaker, I recognize perhaps that it is a legacy of the Harper years. The Conservatives do not seem to understand that a team that works together actually has lots of people having meetings about things that matter all the time. We continue to engage in a broad way that both protects and upholds jobs in this country and respects the independence of our system and its judiciary. That is something we expect from all members of cabinet and all my staff, and we work together to serve Canadians, day in and day out.

Mr. Speaker, our government has made smart and responsible investments in the middle class, and Canadians are seeing concrete results.It has had a significant impact. A typical middle-class family is $2,000 better off this year than in 2015. However, we know there is more to do. That is why I am so pleased to announce that on March 19, we will be introducing budget 2019, the next steps in our plan to ensure middle-class optimism and an economy that works for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, again, to hear the member opposite, Canadians might be worried about the independence of our judicial system. Allow me to reassure them not only with my words, but by a direct quote from the director of public prosecutions herself, who just last week confirmed for Canadians that in every case prosecutors “exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”

Mr. Speaker, I want to give the Prime Minister another opportunity to answer a very simple question.He brags about having many meetings and robust discussions. In any of those meetings, from the date that the director of public prosecutions made her decision to the day that he removed the former attorney general from her post, did the Prime Minister at any time express his support for granting SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, we will always stand up for good jobs right across the country, including in companies like SNC-Lavalin. This is something Canadians expect of us and something we will continue to do. We will continue to recognize that government has an important role to play in making sure Canadians can find good jobs right across the country and in creating the conditions for success. We will continue to do that in a way that respects both our institutions and the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook for his tireless advocacy, his hard work and the ferocity with which he defends our veterans.We all want the best for veterans and their families. That is why we invested $10 billion into new benefits and services for them, including reopening the nine offices shuttered by the Conservatives, hiring more than 630 new front-line staff, delivering on our promise to reinstate that pension for life. Last fall, we made 25 more beds available at Camp Hill in Halifax for allied and modern-day veterans. The Conservatives paid lip service. We delivered.

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we will consistently stand up for good jobs and find ways to create economic growth and good jobs for Canadians while making sure we respect the independence of our judicial system and the rule of law.The member opposite seems unwilling to take my word for it, so I would like to share what the director of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada said. Last week, she confirmed that prosecutors, in this and every other case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration—

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister admitted yesterday that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee must get on with their work in the matter of interference by his office in the SNC-Lavalin case.How does he think they can get to the truth if he will not allow anyone from his office to appear before the justice committee? On top of that, he refuses to waive the solicitor-client privilege that is keeping the former justice minister from giving her side of the story. If the Prime Minister really wants the truth to come out, then he needs to let her speak.Can the Prime Minister confirm that he will allow the former justice minister—

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can try to hide behind talking points and other members of his Liberal team, but this is about the independence of our judicial system. This is about the rule of law.The Prime Minister has stated that there were many discussions going on, which was why the former attorney general “asked me if I was directing her, or going to direct her, to take a particular decision and I, of course, said no.”Therefore, the simple question is this. If a decision had already been made on September 4, why would she have to ask him if he was directing her?

Mr. Speaker, I note that he cannot answer that simple question.The decision by the top prosecutor in Canada not to grant SNC-Lavalin a special deal was made on September 4. On September 17, the Prime Minister met with the former attorney general. Was the Prime Minister aware of the director of public prosecution's decision when he had that meeting?

Mr. Speaker, again, why did the Prime Minister leave the impression with the attorney general that there was something going on? He said that the former attorney general “asked me if I was directing her, or going to direct her, to take a particular decision and I, of course, said no.” Therefore, the question remains this. Why did the former attorney general think that she needed to ask that? If the decision was already made, why would she have to go and get clarification if he was not in fact attempting to interfere?

Mr. Speaker, we know that the former attorney general and Gerald Butts met at the Chateau Laurier on December 5, 2018, to discuss the SNC-Lavalin case.When was the Prime Minister informed of that meeting?

Mr. Speaker, there we are. First it was the former attorney general's fault, then it was the director of public prosecutions' fault, then it was The Globe and Mail's fault and then it was Scott Brison's fault. Now we know it was Stephen Harper's fault. That is why he did what he did in this scandal. Nobody is buying what he is trying to sell.Now, can the Prime Minister tell this House if at any point in time he ever expressed his support for a special deal for SNC-Lavalin to the former attorney general, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to commend our Minister of Transport once again for doing such a great job. He takes the protection of our rail lines and the safety of Canadians very seriously. That is his priority. I can assure my colleague that we know pipelines are one of the safest ways to transport our oil resources. That is why we are moving forward with Trans Mountain in the right way, as the court requested. This is a good project, and we need to make sure it is done right so that we can keep Canadians safe and export our resources.

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm right here in this House that we had many meetings between cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office on a broad range of important issues that matter to Canadians.It is the work of this government to serve Canadians, to protect jobs and to protect our institutions and the independence of our judiciary at the same time. This is exactly what we do and what we will continue to do, and we will make no apologies to the snide accusations made by the members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, that was not the question. The question was who asked for the meeting between the Prime Minister and the former attorney general. We know that meeting took place on September 17. The director of public prosecutions ruled on September 4 that SNC-Lavalin would not be entitled to a special deal.Once again, who asked for the meeting? Was it the Prime Minister or the former attorney general?

Mr. Speaker, nobody is questioning the director of public prosecutions exercising her authority. What we are questioning is whether the Prime Minister attempted to interfere in an ongoing criminal investigation. However, that was not the question. The question was very simple. The top prosecutor of Canada ruled on September 4 that SNC-Lavalin did not qualify for this new kind of deal. At any point in time since that decision was made, has the Prime Minister expressed his support for SNC-Lavalin getting a deal, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, unlike the member opposite, we will always stand up for jobs, always stand up for the Canadian economy, but we will do that in ways that respect judicial independence and the rule of law. If the member does not choose to take my word for it, let him to take it directly from the director of the Public Prosecution Service, who confirmed just last week that, in every case, prosecutors “exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we are always ensuring that we protect and recover our species that are at risk. Robust recovery strategies and action plans are there to grow and sustain populations. The work that we do is always based on science and this work is always done in consultation and partnership with indigenous groups as well as all stakeholders. This is something that if we are going to do, we need to do it together. That is part of reconciliation.

Mr. Speaker, innovation is transforming the automotive industry, which is one of our largest sources of exports. With technologies like automatic parking, automatic braking and self-driving abilities, the cars of tomorrow will be not only autonomous, but also connected with one another.Could the Prime Minister tell the House what the government is doing to make sure that the cars of the future will be built here in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the hard work of Canadians, Canada's economy is strong and growing, creating well-paying jobs for the middle class and people working hard to join it. More Canadians are working, and families have more money to spend on what matters to them. Could the Minister of Finance please update the House on the next steps in our proven plan to strengthen and grow the middle class?

Mr. Speaker, I will not be apologetic for standing up consistently for good Canadian jobs and for standing up for the independence of our judicial system and the important processes in place. Of course the meetings that I have with any member of cabinet are covered by cabinet confidentiality, but members can be sure that every step of the way we both stand up for Canadians and look to serve them and stand up for our institutions that keep us all safe in this country.

Mr. Speaker, we take very seriously the responsibility of defending jobs, growing the economy and respecting the independence of our justice system. That is why I can very easily say that, yes, we have had many meetings with all cabinet members on many issues that are important to Canadians.The work we need to do together is to manage things properly and deliver tangibly for Canadians across the country. That is what we will always do, while also respecting our institutions.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians can look at this government's record and know that step-by-step we have always stood up for them. We put more money in the pockets of the middle class by raising taxes on the wealthiest 1% and lowering them for the middle class. We delivered the Canada child benefit, which has made a huge difference in people's lives. We have also made sure that every step of the way we have stood up for good jobs across this country, and we will continue to. We will do so, however, always by respecting the independence of our judiciary and the institutions that protect us all in our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, if he did nothing wrong, he should be able to answer yes or no. Did he at any time tell the former attorney general that he favoured giving SNC-Lavalin a special deal, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, the best way to respect the independence of Canada's judicial system is to not interfere with it.This is a very simple yes or no question. This is not about speculation or about an ongoing investigation. This is a yes or no question. Was the Prime Minister aware of Canada's top prosecutor's decision when he had the meeting with the former attorney general, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, the media reported this morning that the director of public prosecutions informed SNC-Lavalin on September 4, 2018, that the company would not be getting a special deal that would allow it to avoid prosecution. The Prime Minister has denied having met with the former attorney general two weeks later on September 17, 2018, to discuss this matter. Who asked for this meeting?

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure Canadians that we are going to fulfill our responsibilities by standing up for jobs in Canada, creating growth, and continuing to make sure that all Canadians have access to the best possible jobs. We will do so, however, by always upholding the integrity of our justice system and complying with all the rules and standards in place. We know that we need to meet Canadians' expectations consistently while respecting our institutions, and that is what we have always done.

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians who have been watching our government over the past three and a half years know full well that we will always stand up for good jobs. We will always stand up for Canadians, and we will always do so in a way that respects and upholds our institutions, including the independence of our judiciary and the rule of law. These are principles that are at the core of what this government does. They were principles at the core of why Canadians elected us in 2015. We have stayed true to those principles of both serving Canadians and defending the independence of our institutions.

Mr. Speaker, we have tremendous confidence in the processes that are in place to move forward, including an investigation by the justice committee in which committee members are independent in their decisions on how to proceed.We also have tremendous confidence in the officers of Parliament, in this case the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who will be pursuing an investigation on this matter.These are things we take seriously. Canadians need to know there are processes in place to move forward on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, this government continues to focus on the things that matter to Canadians, like delivering a Canada child benefit that helps nine out of 10 Canadian families, and moving forward by lowering taxes on the middle class and raising them on the wealthiest 1%. We continue to focus on the upcoming budget, which is going to continue to deliver for Canadians in real ways as we grow the economy in ways that work for the middle class.Unfortunately, under 10 years of Stephen Harper, the benefits to the wealthiest and the well connected did not grow the economy. That is why we have focused on the middle class and will continue to focus on delivering tangibly for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, as Canadians well know of this government, we will always stand up for good jobs. We will always stand up for economic growth. We will always make sure we are supporting Canadians right across the country. However, we will also make sure we are doing it in ways that support and defend our institutions, that support and defend the independence of the rule of law, the independence of our judiciary. These are things that matter to Canadians. We are a government that has been delivering tangibly for them while at the same time defending our democracy and our institutions.

Mr. Speaker, this is a file that touches tens of thousands of Canadians right across the country, including 9,000 direct jobs, and communities right across the country. Of course we are going to be very careful about how we move forward in protecting those jobs, but we are also going to, at the same time, make sure that we are standing up for the independence of our judicial system and all the processes that keep our democratic institutions safe.

Mr. Speaker, despite what the Conservatives say and do, we will always stand up for jobs. We will always stand up for good jobs wherever they are in Canada, including the 9,000 jobs directly affected within SNC-Lavalin.However, we will always do so in a way that respects the independence of our judicial system and the rule of law. Those are the responsibilities that we take very seriously, and we will always try to stand up for good jobs across Canada in the right way.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to political considerations, I will repeat what the director of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada said last week. She confirmed that, in every case, prosecutors exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.Canada has an independent justice system and there will be due process. We will always defend jobs and always respect judicial independence.

Mr. Speaker, once again we see the Conservatives choosing to play political games with issues of deep importance. We remain focused, yes, on standing up for jobs and standing up for the independence of our judiciary in this country. This is something we are going to consistently do, and we will make no apologies for standing strong in our principles to both protect and promote jobs in this country and uphold the rule of law and the independence of our judicial system.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the NDP insists that we have to choose between what is right for the environment and what is right for the economy.We know that the only way to create economic prosperity and protect the environment for years to come is to choose what is right for both.That is why on the Trans Mountain file we are following the path provided for by the courts in the right way. The courts said we needed to consult indigenous peoples and evaluate the impact on marine shipping, and that is exactly what we are doing to prove that we can develop the economy in the right way.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the work done on this important issue by the community of Akwesasne, and recognize that the minister is fully aware of this request, understands how important it is and we will have more to say in the coming weeks.

Mr. Speaker, every step of the way we take very seriously the responsibility of defending good jobs right across this country, while we stand up and protect the institutions that serve us all in this country. Those are the two things that are central tenets for this government and that we will always continue to do. Of course, there are right now two ongoing court cases on this matter and it would be inappropriate for us to comment too much on that.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite seems to be concerned about the independence of the director of the Public Prosecution Service. Let me speak directly to that by quoting her, who just last week confirmed that in every case prosecutors “exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.” Canadians can know that, in this country, we continue to abide by the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, I have been unequivocal over the fall, and I am unequivocal now, that we will always support Canadian jobs and the growth of our economy. We will always stand up to protect workers right across the country.We will always do that in ways that respect the independence of our judiciary, the rule of law and the institutions that keep Canada one of the greatest democracies in the world.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives are calling into question the independence of our judicial system and the rule of law in this country.Allow me to reassure all Canadians watching by quoting directly from the director of the public prosecution service of Canada, who confirmed last week that in every case prosecutors “exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”

Mr. Speaker, unlike what we saw under 10 years of Stephen Harper's government, we respect the independence of parliamentary committees. Parliamentarians on those committees get to make determinations on how they choose to move forward in their own way. On this side of the House, we will always respect the independence of committees.

Mr. Speaker, between September 4, 2018 and the cabinet shuffle on January 14, 2019, did the Prime Minister express his support for a special agreement for SNC-Lavalin?There are only two answers: yes or no.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Lac-Saint-Louis for his hard work, for his leadership in the caucus and for his question.If we want Canada to be a world leader in the new economy, we must support Canadian workers. We announced a $40-million investment to help BlackBerry QNX design and build a new platform for the cars of today and tomorrow. This investment will create 800 jobs for the middle class, will make our cars safer and will help Canada remain an international hub for innovation.

Mr. Speaker, for more than a decade, the Harper government cut front-line staff, closed offices and balanced the budget on the backs of veterans. In 2015, it even closed an entire floor at the Camp Hill Veterans Memorial Building in Halifax. Could the right hon. Prime Minister please describe the steps our government has taken at Camp Hill to respond to the growing needs of veterans of the more recent conflicts and of those who served with our allies?

Mr. Speaker, to move forward from what?The Prime Minister is saying nothing happened. All along he has been saying nothing improper was done. All along he has been saying he did not do anything wrong and people in his office did not do anything wrong, yet we have the facts that the former attorney general was removed from her post and then resigned from cabinet, and the principal secretary has now resigned.What exactly was Mr. Butts moving on from if nothing improper happened?

Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon the Prime Minister to provide some transparency in this very serious scandal. These are major allegations of interference in an independent prosecution.Outside of an investigation by the RCMP, the only way for the Prime Minister to clear the air is by having a public inquiry. Canadians are tired of taking his word for his version of events. They are tired of Liberals getting together with other Liberals to come up with a storyline they will then try to hide behind.Yes or no, will the Prime Minister agree to holding a public inquiry so Canadians can get answers to these questions right—

Mr. Speaker, after being lobbied by SNC-Lavalin, the government changed the Criminal Code and tried to cut a deal to avoid a trial. Two former SNC-Lavalin executives just had their corruption cases thrown out of court because of unrealistic delays, and we learned that SNC has received more than $2 billion in government aid since 2002.Will the Prime Minister recognize that crony capitalism is an unjust system that must be eradicated?

Mr. Speaker, speaking of the rule of law, a new report reveals the government has abjectly failed to consult indigenous peoples on recovery strategies for threatened species. Chief Byron Louis has shared, “The extinction of a species actually has the potential” to extinguish indigenous rights. Frustrated with government inaction, the Mikisew Cree sought intervention by UNESCO, and has joined the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation court to have their rights upheld.When will the Prime Minister stop with the platitudes and actually deliver on his legal responsibilities to first nations?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Lac-Saint-Louis for his hard work, for his leadership in the caucus and for his question.If we want Canada to be a world leader in the new economy, we must support Canadian workers. We announced a $40-million investment to help BlackBerry QNX design and build a new platform for the cars of today and tomorrow. This investment will create 800 jobs for the middle class, will make our cars safer and will help Canada remain an international hub for innovation.

Mr. Speaker, here is what we know. The director of public prosecutions formally rejected a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin on September 4. The Prime Minister met with the former justice minister two weeks later on September 17 to discuss the matter. The day after that meeting, SNC-Lavalin lobbyists met with no fewer than four ministers and senior officials. What a coincidence.With a remediation agreement ruled out, why was that meeting between the Prime Minister and the former justice minister necessary? Can the Prime Minister explain the lobbying blitz that followed?

Again, Mr. Speaker, if he has done nothing wrong, he should be able to answer. Meetings at the Chateau Laurier between Gerald Butts and the former attorney general are not covered by cabinet confidentiality. He should be able to tell Canadians, if he has done nothing wrong, if he has not interfered in an ongoing criminal prosecution case. Has he ever told the former attorney general that he favoured a special deal for SNC-Lavalin, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, we know that the former attorney general and Gerald Butts met at the Chateau Laurier on December 5, 2018, to discuss the SNC-Lavalin case.When was the Prime Minister informed of that meeting?

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?

Mr. Speaker, I recognize perhaps that it is a legacy of the Harper years. The Conservatives do not seem to understand that a team that works together actually has lots of people having meetings about things that matter all the time. We continue to engage in a broad way that both protects and upholds jobs in this country and respects the independence of our system and its judiciary. That is something we expect from all members of cabinet and all my staff, and we work together to serve Canadians, day in and day out.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can try to hide behind talking points and other members of his Liberal team, but this is about the independence of our judicial system. This is about the rule of law.The Prime Minister has stated that there were many discussions going on, which was why the former attorney general “asked me if I was directing her, or going to direct her, to take a particular decision and I, of course, said no.”Therefore, the simple question is this. If a decision had already been made on September 4, why would she have to ask him if he was directing her?

Mr. Speaker, this government continues to focus on the things that matter to Canadians, like delivering a Canada child benefit that helps nine out of 10 Canadian families, and moving forward by lowering taxes on the middle class and raising them on the wealthiest 1%. We continue to focus on the upcoming budget, which is going to continue to deliver for Canadians in real ways as we grow the economy in ways that work for the middle class.Unfortunately, under 10 years of Stephen Harper, the benefits to the wealthiest and the well connected did not grow the economy. That is why we have focused on the middle class and will continue to focus on delivering tangibly for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals promised to put an end to fossil fuel subsidies, but they obviously have not.To make matters worse, they spent $4.5 billion on an old pipeline.The Liberals also promised that a climate impact assessment would be conducted for all energy projects. Now, we have learned that no such assessment will be carried out for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. I have a little tip for voters. Any time the Prime Minister promises to do something, they should expect him to do the opposite.Do the Liberals realize that they are beginning to look more and more like Pinocchio when it comes to the fight against climate change?

Mr. Speaker, again, why did the Prime Minister leave the impression with the attorney general that there was something going on? He said that the former attorney general “asked me if I was directing her, or going to direct her, to take a particular decision and I, of course, said no.” Therefore, the question remains this. Why did the former attorney general think that she needed to ask that? If the decision was already made, why would she have to go and get clarification if he was not in fact attempting to interfere?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just expressed his confidence in the justice committee's work to get to the bottom of this very serious scandal. Last week the government instructed Liberal members of that committee to block Conservative and NDP attempts to get a full witness list in front of the committee. The members of the committee admitted that they received that list from government offices.Therefore, if the Prime Minister has so much confidence in the justice committee's work, will he allow Gerald Butts to testify under oath at that very committee?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot hold up the independence of the office of the director of public prosecutions and, at the same time, interfere and attempt to get a reversal of a decision.The decision on SNC-Lavalin was made on September 4. The Prime Minister had a meeting with the former attorney general on September 17. Gerald Butts had a meeting with the former attorney general on December 5.Why would the Prime Minister have so many meetings with the former attorney general if it were not to try to reverse a decision that had already been made?

Mr. Speaker, with respect to political considerations, I will repeat what the director of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada said last week. She confirmed that, in every case, prosecutors exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.Canada has an independent justice system and there will be due process. We will always defend jobs and always respect judicial independence.

Mr. Speaker, On December 5, when Gerald Butts met with the attorney general at a hotel in downtown Ottawa, it is clear that the SNC-Lavalin case was discussed. Who asked for that meeting?

Mr. Speaker, that was not the question. The question was who asked for the meeting between the Prime Minister and the former attorney general. We know that meeting took place on September 17. The director of public prosecutions ruled on September 4 that SNC-Lavalin would not be entitled to a special deal.Once again, who asked for the meeting? Was it the Prime Minister or the former attorney general?

Mr. Speaker, what day is this? Oh, it is Wednesday. It is a new day, a new excuse, a new bombshell in the Gerry Butts-SNC scandal, and this one is a doozy.It turns out that the Prime Minister met with the justice minister after they found out that the independent public prosecution would not give the free get-out-of-jail card to SNC. I wonder what happened in that meeting, because it would represent a major interference in the independence of Canada's justice system.Therefore, will the Prime Minister give us a full airing, and agree to an independent inquiry where his staff will be forced to testify?

Mr. Speaker, the media reported this morning that the director of public prosecutions informed SNC-Lavalin on September 4, 2018, that the company would not be getting a special deal that would allow it to avoid prosecution. The Prime Minister has denied having met with the former attorney general two weeks later on September 17, 2018, to discuss this matter. Who asked for this meeting?

Mr. Speaker, if he did nothing wrong, he should be able to answer yes or no. Did he at any time tell the former attorney general that he favoured giving SNC-Lavalin a special deal, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, we have tremendous confidence in the processes that are in place to move forward, including an investigation by the justice committee in which committee members are independent in their decisions on how to proceed.We also have tremendous confidence in the officers of Parliament, in this case the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who will be pursuing an investigation on this matter.These are things we take seriously. Canadians need to know there are processes in place to move forward on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister told his caucus that any communication coming from Mr. Butts should be considered as coming from the Prime Minister himself. Once again, when did the Prime Minister become aware of the December 5 meeting between Gerald Butts and the former attorney general?

Mr. Speaker, again, to hear the member opposite, Canadians might be worried about the independence of our judicial system. Allow me to reassure them not only with my words, but by a direct quote from the director of public prosecutions herself, who just last week confirmed for Canadians that in every case prosecutors “exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we are always ensuring that we protect and recover our species that are at risk. Robust recovery strategies and action plans are there to grow and sustain populations. The work that we do is always based on science and this work is always done in consultation and partnership with indigenous groups as well as all stakeholders. This is something that if we are going to do, we need to do it together. That is part of reconciliation.

Mr. Speaker, there we are. First it was the former attorney general's fault, then it was the director of public prosecutions' fault, then it was The Globe and Mail's fault and then it was Scott Brison's fault. Now we know it was Stephen Harper's fault. That is why he did what he did in this scandal. Nobody is buying what he is trying to sell.Now, can the Prime Minister tell this House if at any point in time he ever expressed his support for a special deal for SNC-Lavalin to the former attorney general, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is certainly not acting like someone who is innocent of these serious allegations. Once again, on September 17, he admitted that he had a meeting with the former attorney general. Canada's top prosecutor had already decided, with her independent analysis, that SNC-Lavalin was not entitled to a special deal.Once again, who asked for the meeting? There are only two options. It was either the Prime Minister or the former attorney general. Which was it?

Mr. Speaker, I want to give the Prime Minister another opportunity to answer a very simple question.He brags about having many meetings and robust discussions. In any of those meetings, from the date that the director of public prosecutions made her decision to the day that he removed the former attorney general from her post, did the Prime Minister at any time express his support for granting SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, once again, I have tremendous confidence in the members of the justice committee, who will be moving forward on the investigation of all sides; and indeed in the Ethics Commissioner, who has taken this matter under investigation.At the same time, I want to, once again, thank Gerry Butts for his contributions to Canada. His letter of resignation speaks for itself. He continues to believe deeply in what this government, and this country, is doing to help everyone.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the member opposite, we will always stand up for jobs, always stand up for the Canadian economy, but we will do that in ways that respect judicial independence and the rule of law. If the member does not choose to take my word for it, let him to take it directly from the director of the Public Prosecution Service, who confirmed just last week that, in every case, prosecutors “exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite seems to be concerned about the independence of the director of the Public Prosecution Service. Let me speak directly to that by quoting her, who just last week confirmed that in every case prosecutors “exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.” Canadians can know that, in this country, we continue to abide by the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite have been talking an awful lot about solicitor-client privilege. It is also important to understand that discussions among the federal cabinet are covered by cabinet confidentiality as well. This is the work that we are doing to make sure we are delivering for Canadians in terms of good jobs, in terms of economic growth, in terms of opportunities for all, while at the same time upholding the independence of our judiciary, the integrity of our democratic institutions, and we will always do that.

Mr. Speaker, again, that was not the question. This is key to this entire affair of allegations of interference in a criminal proceeding. The Prime Minister, through an omnibus bill, gave the top prosecutor the option of using a deferred prosecution agreement, and she ruled, in her independent manner, that SNC-Lavalin did not qualify.At any point in time since that decision, has the Prime Minister expressed his support for this kind of deal for SNC-Lavalin, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the hard work of Canadians, Canada's economy is strong and growing, creating well-paying jobs for the middle class and people working hard to join it. More Canadians are working, and families have more money to spend on what matters to them. Could the Minister of Finance please update the House on the next steps in our proven plan to strengthen and grow the middle class?

Mr. Speaker, during the December 5 meeting between Gerald Butts and the former attorney general, it is reported that Mr. Butts told her to go and see the Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick. Now, if the decision had already been made by the independent top prosecutor in Canada on September 4 and if the Prime Minister had already indicated that it was the attorney general's decision to be made, why would she have to go and visit the Clerk of the Privy Council?

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to breaking promises to Canadians, we have to hand it to the Prime Minister. Right now on the Trans Mountain pipeline fiasco he is doing a two-for-one deal. First, he promised to end all fossil fuel subsidies, but dumping $4.5 billion of our money on a 65-year old pipeline was not enough. Now the pipeline-owning Prime Minister wants a further $2 billion subsidy from Canadians. Then the Liberals promised that all pipelines would receive a climate change review as part of their approval.However, here is a new guide for Canadians when listening to the Prime Minister. Listen closely and know that the truth is the opposite. When is he going to stop helping out his friends and start working to fight climate change?

Mr. Speaker, it was Manitoba's turn to suffer a massive derailment involving flammable substances. With trains getting longer and running more frequently, and with deregulation on the rise, another tragedy like that of Lac-Mégantic could still happen. That much is clear. Residents are worried. They do not want to experience another tragedy like that. The Minister of Transport is all talk and no action. Could the Prime Minister direct his minister to get to work on rail safety in order to protect Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives are calling into question the independence of our judicial system and the rule of law in this country.Allow me to reassure all Canadians watching by quoting directly from the director of the public prosecution service of Canada, who confirmed last week that in every case prosecutors “exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”

Mr. Speaker, the respect we have for our justice system is extremely important. That is why we are carefully considering the issue of solicitor-client privilege. That is why I asked our Attorney General for advice on how to proceed in this matter so that we can give people the opportunity to speak. It is important that Canadians hear the truth.That being said, it is important to understand that there is a real danger of unintended negative consequences on the two cases currently before the courts.

Mr. Speaker, nobody is questioning the director of public prosecutions exercising her authority. What we are questioning is whether the Prime Minister attempted to interfere in an ongoing criminal investigation. However, that was not the question. The question was very simple. The top prosecutor of Canada ruled on September 4 that SNC-Lavalin did not qualify for this new kind of deal. At any point in time since that decision was made, has the Prime Minister expressed his support for SNC-Lavalin getting a deal, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to ascertain is whether there was political interference in a legal matter.We have many questions but have been given few answers to date. What we do have are many versions of what happened. The Prime Minister gave not one, two or three versions, but five versions.The former justice minister has not been able to give us her version because she is bound by client-solicitor privilege, which the Prime Minister refuses to waive. Members could not stop laughing yesterday when he stated with a straight face that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which is dominated by a Liberal majority, is non-partisan. It is obvious that only an independent inquiry will get to the bottom of this matter. When will they—

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Nelson White from Akwesasne First Nation has invested a lot of his own money to fund the White Pine Healing lodge to support those in his community who suffer from addiction. The project was created as a response to the state of emergency due to the alarming rate of suicide and substance abuse. He has the support of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne. The government keeps saying that it is a good project, but without funding in the coming weeks, there will be no healing lodge. Will the government deliver the money or will it let down the people of Akwesasne?

Mr. Speaker, for more than a decade, the Harper government cut front-line staff, closed offices and balanced the budget on the backs of veterans. In 2015, it even closed an entire floor at the Camp Hill Veterans Memorial Building in Halifax. Could the right hon. Prime Minister please describe the steps our government has taken at Camp Hill to respond to the growing needs of veterans of the more recent conflicts and of those who served with our allies?

Mr. Speaker, I note that he cannot answer that simple question.The decision by the top prosecutor in Canada not to grant SNC-Lavalin a special deal was made on September 4. On September 17, the Prime Minister met with the former attorney general. Was the Prime Minister aware of the director of public prosecution's decision when he had that meeting?

Mr. Speaker, it is so telling that the Prime Minister cannot even answer this kind of simple question. These are not the actions and this is not the behaviour of someone who is innocent of what he is being accused of. On September 4, the independent director of public prosecutions made a decision. The Prime Minister and his team then went to work and had several meetings with the former attorney general. In any of those meetings, did he ever and will he today indicate whether or not he supports SNC-Lavalin getting a special deal, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, once again we see the Conservatives choosing to play political games with issues of deep importance. We remain focused, yes, on standing up for jobs and standing up for the independence of our judiciary in this country. This is something we are going to consistently do, and we will make no apologies for standing strong in our principles to both protect and promote jobs in this country and uphold the rule of law and the independence of our judicial system.

Mr. Speaker, every step of the way we take very seriously the responsibility of defending good jobs right across this country, while we stand up and protect the institutions that serve us all in this country. Those are the two things that are central tenets for this government and that we will always continue to do. Of course, there are right now two ongoing court cases on this matter and it would be inappropriate for us to comment too much on that.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister admitted yesterday that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee must get on with their work in the matter of interference by his office in the SNC-Lavalin case.How does he think they can get to the truth if he will not allow anyone from his office to appear before the justice committee? On top of that, he refuses to waive the solicitor-client privilege that is keeping the former justice minister from giving her side of the story. If the Prime Minister really wants the truth to come out, then he needs to let her speak.Can the Prime Minister confirm that he will allow the former justice minister—

Mr. Speaker, between September 4, 2018 and the cabinet shuffle on January 14, 2019, did the Prime Minister express his support for a special agreement for SNC-Lavalin?There are only two answers: yes or no.

Mr. Speaker, on Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, we are following the path provided for by the courts in the right way. The courts said we needed to do better on consulting indigenous peoples and on evaluating the impact on marine shipping. That is exactly what we are doing.The Conservative approach for 10 years failed to get our exports to new markets. That is why we knew we needed to do it in the right way, which includes an oceans protection plan that means a faster spill response, more towing capacity and a plan to protect marine mammals. We are continuing to fight climate change with a plan to put a price on pollution. That is what is this government is doing.

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians who have been watching our government over the past three and a half years know full well that we will always stand up for good jobs. We will always stand up for Canadians, and we will always do so in a way that respects and upholds our institutions, including the independence of our judiciary and the rule of law. These are principles that are at the core of what this government does. They were principles at the core of why Canadians elected us in 2015. We have stayed true to those principles of both serving Canadians and defending the independence of our institutions.

Mr. Speaker, people who are innocent usually do not have trouble answering simple questions, especially when they are yes or no answers.Gerald Butts claims to be innocent, but innocent people do not tend to resign from their jobs. Did the Prime Minister ask Mr. Butts to resign, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, once again, the NDP insists that we have to choose between what is right for the environment and what is right for the economy.We know that the only way to create economic prosperity and protect the environment for years to come is to choose what is right for both.That is why on the Trans Mountain file we are following the path provided for by the courts in the right way. The courts said we needed to consult indigenous peoples and evaluate the impact on marine shipping, and that is exactly what we are doing to prove that we can develop the economy in the right way.

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm right here in this House that we had many meetings between cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office on a broad range of important issues that matter to Canadians.It is the work of this government to serve Canadians, to protect jobs and to protect our institutions and the independence of our judiciary at the same time. This is exactly what we do and what we will continue to do, and we will make no apologies to the snide accusations made by the members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, this is a file that touches tens of thousands of Canadians right across the country, including 9,000 direct jobs, and communities right across the country. Of course we are going to be very careful about how we move forward in protecting those jobs, but we are also going to, at the same time, make sure that we are standing up for the independence of our judicial system and all the processes that keep our democratic institutions safe.

Mr. Speaker, innovation is transforming the automotive industry, which is one of our largest sources of exports. With technologies like automatic parking, automatic braking and self-driving abilities, the cars of tomorrow will be not only autonomous, but also connected with one another.Could the Prime Minister tell the House what the government is doing to make sure that the cars of the future will be built here in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, our government has made smart and responsible investments in the middle class, and Canadians are seeing concrete results.It has had a significant impact. A typical middle-class family is $2,000 better off this year than in 2015. However, we know there is more to do. That is why I am so pleased to announce that on March 19, we will be introducing budget 2019, the next steps in our plan to ensure middle-class optimism and an economy that works for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we will consistently stand up for good jobs and find ways to create economic growth and good jobs for Canadians while making sure we respect the independence of our judicial system and the rule of law.The member opposite seems unwilling to take my word for it, so I would like to share what the director of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada said. Last week, she confirmed that prosecutors, in this and every other case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration—

Mr. Speaker, we take very seriously the responsibility of defending jobs, growing the economy and respecting the independence of our justice system. That is why I can very easily say that, yes, we have had many meetings with all cabinet members on many issues that are important to Canadians.The work we need to do together is to manage things properly and deliver tangibly for Canadians across the country. That is what we will always do, while also respecting our institutions.

Fair enough; they do stand up for jobs, Mr. Speaker, the jobs of lobbyists. He is led around by the nose by lobbyists. The question is if he is willing to obstruct justice to help his lobbyist friends. Oh, to live in the tawdry but very elite world of Gerry Butts and the Prime Minister.Was it Gerry's idea to strong-arm the justice department to help their insider friends? No wonder he does not want Gerry Butts testifying at committee. Will the Prime Minister agree to allow Gerry Butts and his staff to testify under oath, so we can get to the bottom? By the way, is he willing to testify?

Mr. Speaker, despite what the Conservatives say and do, we will always stand up for jobs. We will always stand up for good jobs wherever they are in Canada, including the 9,000 jobs directly affected within SNC-Lavalin.However, we will always do so in a way that respects the independence of our judicial system and the rule of law. Those are the responsibilities that we take very seriously, and we will always try to stand up for good jobs across Canada in the right way.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we look forward to the work that will be done by the justice committee and, indeed, by the Ethics Commissioner on this matter.It is extremely important that Canadians get to hear all the facts. We will continue to make sure we are standing up for good jobs right across the country and upholding the independence of our judicial system. That is something that Canadians expect; that is something that we expect.In terms of waiving privilege, that is not a simple matter, and that is why we have asked the Attorney General for advice on this, because we know there is a danger of unintended consequences on the two court cases currently going through on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook for his tireless advocacy, his hard work and the ferocity with which he defends our veterans.We all want the best for veterans and their families. That is why we invested $10 billion into new benefits and services for them, including reopening the nine offices shuttered by the Conservatives, hiring more than 630 new front-line staff, delivering on our promise to reinstate that pension for life. Last fall, we made 25 more beds available at Camp Hill in Halifax for allied and modern-day veterans. The Conservatives paid lip service. We delivered.

Mr. Speaker, the best way to respect the independence of Canada's judicial system is to not interfere with it.This is a very simple yes or no question. This is not about speculation or about an ongoing investigation. This is a yes or no question. Was the Prime Minister aware of Canada's top prosecutor's decision when he had the meeting with the former attorney general, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, Gerald Butts' statement speaks for itself. He made this decision because he felt it was important for the government to move forward. His dedication to this country, to this government, and to the work we are doing to give a real and fair chance to everyone to succeed continues. I thank him deeply for his service to Canada.

Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to commend our Minister of Transport once again for doing such a great job. He takes the protection of our rail lines and the safety of Canadians very seriously. That is his priority. I can assure my colleague that we know pipelines are one of the safest ways to transport our oil resources. That is why we are moving forward with Trans Mountain in the right way, as the court requested. This is a good project, and we need to make sure it is done right so that we can keep Canadians safe and export our resources.

Mr. Speaker, as Canadians well know of this government, we will always stand up for good jobs. We will always stand up for economic growth. We will always make sure we are supporting Canadians right across the country. However, we will also make sure we are doing it in ways that support and defend our institutions, that support and defend the independence of the rule of law, the independence of our judiciary. These are things that matter to Canadians. We are a government that has been delivering tangibly for them while at the same time defending our democracy and our institutions.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians can look at this government's record and know that step-by-step we have always stood up for them. We put more money in the pockets of the middle class by raising taxes on the wealthiest 1% and lowering them for the middle class. We delivered the Canada child benefit, which has made a huge difference in people's lives. We have also made sure that every step of the way we have stood up for good jobs across this country, and we will continue to. We will do so, however, always by respecting the independence of our judiciary and the institutions that protect us all in our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the work done on this important issue by the community of Akwesasne, and recognize that the minister is fully aware of this request, understands how important it is and we will have more to say in the coming weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure Canadians that we are going to fulfill our responsibilities by standing up for jobs in Canada, creating growth, and continuing to make sure that all Canadians have access to the best possible jobs. We will do so, however, by always upholding the integrity of our justice system and complying with all the rules and standards in place. We know that we need to meet Canadians' expectations consistently while respecting our institutions, and that is what we have always done.

Mr. Speaker, we will always stand up for good jobs right across the country, including in companies like SNC-Lavalin. This is something Canadians expect of us and something we will continue to do. We will continue to recognize that government has an important role to play in making sure Canadians can find good jobs right across the country and in creating the conditions for success. We will continue to do that in a way that respects both our institutions and the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, I will not be apologetic for standing up consistently for good Canadian jobs and for standing up for the independence of our judicial system and the important processes in place. Of course the meetings that I have with any member of cabinet are covered by cabinet confidentiality, but members can be sure that every step of the way we both stand up for Canadians and look to serve them and stand up for our institutions that keep us all safe in this country.

Mr. Speaker, every step of the way, we will stand up for good jobs for Canadians. We will stand up for the independence of our judiciary and the rule of law. The trust Canadians have in their institutions is extremely important to us. That is why we look forward to the processes under way, both at the justice committee and indeed at the Ethics Commissioner investigation, so Canadians can continue to have full confidence in our democracy and the institutions that serve them.

Mr. Speaker, our government works in an ongoing fashion to make sure that we are standing up for good jobs right across the country and doing it in respect of the independence of our judicial system and the robustness of the rule of law. That is something all Canadians expect of us, that we fight for their jobs right across the country. We will always do that. It is telling right now that we see the Conservatives saying that they will not. They do not stand up for good jobs across this country. They do not stand up for good jobs wherever they are. We will continue to do so and we will do so in a way that respects the rule of law, that respects the independence of our judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to the work that both the Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee of parliamentarians will be doing on this matter, but I can assure all Canadians that unlike the Leader of the Opposition, we will always stand up for good jobs right across this country, every step of the way, while making sure we respect the independence of our judicial system.

Mr. Speaker, unlike what we saw under 10 years of Stephen Harper's government, we respect the independence of parliamentary committees. Parliamentarians on those committees get to make determinations on how they choose to move forward in their own way. On this side of the House, we will always respect the independence of committees.

Mr. Speaker, I have been unequivocal over the fall, and I am unequivocal now, that we will always support Canadian jobs and the growth of our economy. We will always stand up to protect workers right across the country.We will always do that in ways that respect the independence of our judiciary, the rule of law and the institutions that keep Canada one of the greatest democracies in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I have been unequivocal over the fall, and I am unequivocal now, that we will always support Canadian jobs and the growth of our economy. We will always stand up to protect workers right across the country.We will always do that in ways that respect the independence of our judiciary, the rule of law and the institutions that keep Canada one of the greatest democracies in the world.

Mr. Speaker, unlike what we saw under 10 years of Stephen Harper's government, we respect the independence of parliamentary committees. Parliamentarians on those committees get to make determinations on how they choose to move forward in their own way. On this side of the House, we will always respect the independence of committees.

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to the work that both the Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee of parliamentarians will be doing on this matter, but I can assure all Canadians that unlike the Leader of the Opposition, we will always stand up for good jobs right across this country, every step of the way, while making sure we respect the independence of our judicial system.

Mr. Speaker, our government works in an ongoing fashion to make sure that we are standing up for good jobs right across the country and doing it in respect of the independence of our judicial system and the robustness of the rule of law. That is something all Canadians expect of us, that we fight for their jobs right across the country. We will always do that. It is telling right now that we see the Conservatives saying that they will not. They do not stand up for good jobs across this country. They do not stand up for good jobs wherever they are. We will continue to do so and we will do so in a way that respects the rule of law, that respects the independence of our judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, every step of the way, we will stand up for good jobs for Canadians. We will stand up for the independence of our judiciary and the rule of law. The trust Canadians have in their institutions is extremely important to us. That is why we look forward to the processes under way, both at the justice committee and indeed at the Ethics Commissioner investigation, so Canadians can continue to have full confidence in our democracy and the institutions that serve them.

Mr. Speaker, I will not be apologetic for standing up consistently for good Canadian jobs and for standing up for the independence of our judicial system and the important processes in place. Of course the meetings that I have with any member of cabinet are covered by cabinet confidentiality, but members can be sure that every step of the way we both stand up for Canadians and look to serve them and stand up for our institutions that keep us all safe in this country.

Mr. Speaker, we will always stand up for good jobs right across the country, including in companies like SNC-Lavalin. This is something Canadians expect of us and something we will continue to do. We will continue to recognize that government has an important role to play in making sure Canadians can find good jobs right across the country and in creating the conditions for success. We will continue to do that in a way that respects both our institutions and the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure Canadians that we are going to fulfill our responsibilities by standing up for jobs in Canada, creating growth, and continuing to make sure that all Canadians have access to the best possible jobs. We will do so, however, by always upholding the integrity of our justice system and complying with all the rules and standards in place. We know that we need to meet Canadians' expectations consistently while respecting our institutions, and that is what we have always done.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the work done on this important issue by the community of Akwesasne, and recognize that the minister is fully aware of this request, understands how important it is and we will have more to say in the coming weeks.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians can look at this government's record and know that step-by-step we have always stood up for them. We put more money in the pockets of the middle class by raising taxes on the wealthiest 1% and lowering them for the middle class. We delivered the Canada child benefit, which has made a huge difference in people's lives. We have also made sure that every step of the way we have stood up for good jobs across this country, and we will continue to. We will do so, however, always by respecting the independence of our judiciary and the institutions that protect us all in our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, as Canadians well know of this government, we will always stand up for good jobs. We will always stand up for economic growth. We will always make sure we are supporting Canadians right across the country. However, we will also make sure we are doing it in ways that support and defend our institutions, that support and defend the independence of the rule of law, the independence of our judiciary. These are things that matter to Canadians. We are a government that has been delivering tangibly for them while at the same time defending our democracy and our institutions.

Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to commend our Minister of Transport once again for doing such a great job. He takes the protection of our rail lines and the safety of Canadians very seriously. That is his priority. I can assure my colleague that we know pipelines are one of the safest ways to transport our oil resources. That is why we are moving forward with Trans Mountain in the right way, as the court requested. This is a good project, and we need to make sure it is done right so that we can keep Canadians safe and export our resources.

Mr. Speaker, Gerald Butts' statement speaks for itself. He made this decision because he felt it was important for the government to move forward. His dedication to this country, to this government, and to the work we are doing to give a real and fair chance to everyone to succeed continues. I thank him deeply for his service to Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the best way to respect the independence of Canada's judicial system is to not interfere with it.This is a very simple yes or no question. This is not about speculation or about an ongoing investigation. This is a yes or no question. Was the Prime Minister aware of Canada's top prosecutor's decision when he had the meeting with the former attorney general, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook for his tireless advocacy, his hard work and the ferocity with which he defends our veterans.We all want the best for veterans and their families. That is why we invested $10 billion into new benefits and services for them, including reopening the nine offices shuttered by the Conservatives, hiring more than 630 new front-line staff, delivering on our promise to reinstate that pension for life. Last fall, we made 25 more beds available at Camp Hill in Halifax for allied and modern-day veterans. The Conservatives paid lip service. We delivered.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we look forward to the work that will be done by the justice committee and, indeed, by the Ethics Commissioner on this matter.It is extremely important that Canadians get to hear all the facts. We will continue to make sure we are standing up for good jobs right across the country and upholding the independence of our judicial system. That is something that Canadians expect; that is something that we expect.In terms of waiving privilege, that is not a simple matter, and that is why we have asked the Attorney General for advice on this, because we know there is a danger of unintended consequences on the two court cases currently going through on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, despite what the Conservatives say and do, we will always stand up for jobs. We will always stand up for good jobs wherever they are in Canada, including the 9,000 jobs directly affected within SNC-Lavalin.However, we will always do so in a way that respects the independence of our judicial system and the rule of law. Those are the responsibilities that we take very seriously, and we will always try to stand up for good jobs across Canada in the right way.

Fair enough; they do stand up for jobs, Mr. Speaker, the jobs of lobbyists. He is led around by the nose by lobbyists. The question is if he is willing to obstruct justice to help his lobbyist friends. Oh, to live in the tawdry but very elite world of Gerry Butts and the Prime Minister.Was it Gerry's idea to strong-arm the justice department to help their insider friends? No wonder he does not want Gerry Butts testifying at committee. Will the Prime Minister agree to allow Gerry Butts and his staff to testify under oath, so we can get to the bottom? By the way, is he willing to testify?

Mr. Speaker, we take very seriously the responsibility of defending jobs, growing the economy and respecting the independence of our justice system. That is why I can very easily say that, yes, we have had many meetings with all cabinet members on many issues that are important to Canadians.The work we need to do together is to manage things properly and deliver tangibly for Canadians across the country. That is what we will always do, while also respecting our institutions.

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we will consistently stand up for good jobs and find ways to create economic growth and good jobs for Canadians while making sure we respect the independence of our judicial system and the rule of law.The member opposite seems unwilling to take my word for it, so I would like to share what the director of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada said. Last week, she confirmed that prosecutors, in this and every other case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration—

Mr. Speaker, our government has made smart and responsible investments in the middle class, and Canadians are seeing concrete results.It has had a significant impact. A typical middle-class family is $2,000 better off this year than in 2015. However, we know there is more to do. That is why I am so pleased to announce that on March 19, we will be introducing budget 2019, the next steps in our plan to ensure middle-class optimism and an economy that works for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, innovation is transforming the automotive industry, which is one of our largest sources of exports. With technologies like automatic parking, automatic braking and self-driving abilities, the cars of tomorrow will be not only autonomous, but also connected with one another.Could the Prime Minister tell the House what the government is doing to make sure that the cars of the future will be built here in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, this is a file that touches tens of thousands of Canadians right across the country, including 9,000 direct jobs, and communities right across the country. Of course we are going to be very careful about how we move forward in protecting those jobs, but we are also going to, at the same time, make sure that we are standing up for the independence of our judicial system and all the processes that keep our democratic institutions safe.

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm right here in this House that we had many meetings between cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office on a broad range of important issues that matter to Canadians.It is the work of this government to serve Canadians, to protect jobs and to protect our institutions and the independence of our judiciary at the same time. This is exactly what we do and what we will continue to do, and we will make no apologies to the snide accusations made by the members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the NDP insists that we have to choose between what is right for the environment and what is right for the economy.We know that the only way to create economic prosperity and protect the environment for years to come is to choose what is right for both.That is why on the Trans Mountain file we are following the path provided for by the courts in the right way. The courts said we needed to consult indigenous peoples and evaluate the impact on marine shipping, and that is exactly what we are doing to prove that we can develop the economy in the right way.

Mr. Speaker, people who are innocent usually do not have trouble answering simple questions, especially when they are yes or no answers.Gerald Butts claims to be innocent, but innocent people do not tend to resign from their jobs. Did the Prime Minister ask Mr. Butts to resign, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians who have been watching our government over the past three and a half years know full well that we will always stand up for good jobs. We will always stand up for Canadians, and we will always do so in a way that respects and upholds our institutions, including the independence of our judiciary and the rule of law. These are principles that are at the core of what this government does. They were principles at the core of why Canadians elected us in 2015. We have stayed true to those principles of both serving Canadians and defending the independence of our institutions.

Mr. Speaker, on Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, we are following the path provided for by the courts in the right way. The courts said we needed to do better on consulting indigenous peoples and on evaluating the impact on marine shipping. That is exactly what we are doing.The Conservative approach for 10 years failed to get our exports to new markets. That is why we knew we needed to do it in the right way, which includes an oceans protection plan that means a faster spill response, more towing capacity and a plan to protect marine mammals. We are continuing to fight climate change with a plan to put a price on pollution. That is what is this government is doing.

Mr. Speaker, between September 4, 2018 and the cabinet shuffle on January 14, 2019, did the Prime Minister express his support for a special agreement for SNC-Lavalin?There are only two answers: yes or no.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister admitted yesterday that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee must get on with their work in the matter of interference by his office in the SNC-Lavalin case.How does he think they can get to the truth if he will not allow anyone from his office to appear before the justice committee? On top of that, he refuses to waive the solicitor-client privilege that is keeping the former justice minister from giving her side of the story. If the Prime Minister really wants the truth to come out, then he needs to let her speak.Can the Prime Minister confirm that he will allow the former justice minister—

Mr. Speaker, every step of the way we take very seriously the responsibility of defending good jobs right across this country, while we stand up and protect the institutions that serve us all in this country. Those are the two things that are central tenets for this government and that we will always continue to do. Of course, there are right now two ongoing court cases on this matter and it would be inappropriate for us to comment too much on that.

Mr. Speaker, once again we see the Conservatives choosing to play political games with issues of deep importance. We remain focused, yes, on standing up for jobs and standing up for the independence of our judiciary in this country. This is something we are going to consistently do, and we will make no apologies for standing strong in our principles to both protect and promote jobs in this country and uphold the rule of law and the independence of our judicial system.

Mr. Speaker, it is so telling that the Prime Minister cannot even answer this kind of simple question. These are not the actions and this is not the behaviour of someone who is innocent of what he is being accused of. On September 4, the independent director of public prosecutions made a decision. The Prime Minister and his team then went to work and had several meetings with the former attorney general. In any of those meetings, did he ever and will he today indicate whether or not he supports SNC-Lavalin getting a special deal, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, I note that he cannot answer that simple question.The decision by the top prosecutor in Canada not to grant SNC-Lavalin a special deal was made on September 4. On September 17, the Prime Minister met with the former attorney general. Was the Prime Minister aware of the director of public prosecution's decision when he had that meeting?

Mr. Speaker, for more than a decade, the Harper government cut front-line staff, closed offices and balanced the budget on the backs of veterans. In 2015, it even closed an entire floor at the Camp Hill Veterans Memorial Building in Halifax. Could the right hon. Prime Minister please describe the steps our government has taken at Camp Hill to respond to the growing needs of veterans of the more recent conflicts and of those who served with our allies?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Nelson White from Akwesasne First Nation has invested a lot of his own money to fund the White Pine Healing lodge to support those in his community who suffer from addiction. The project was created as a response to the state of emergency due to the alarming rate of suicide and substance abuse. He has the support of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne. The government keeps saying that it is a good project, but without funding in the coming weeks, there will be no healing lodge. Will the government deliver the money or will it let down the people of Akwesasne?

Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to ascertain is whether there was political interference in a legal matter.We have many questions but have been given few answers to date. What we do have are many versions of what happened. The Prime Minister gave not one, two or three versions, but five versions.The former justice minister has not been able to give us her version because she is bound by client-solicitor privilege, which the Prime Minister refuses to waive. Members could not stop laughing yesterday when he stated with a straight face that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which is dominated by a Liberal majority, is non-partisan. It is obvious that only an independent inquiry will get to the bottom of this matter. When will they—

Mr. Speaker, nobody is questioning the director of public prosecutions exercising her authority. What we are questioning is whether the Prime Minister attempted to interfere in an ongoing criminal investigation. However, that was not the question. The question was very simple. The top prosecutor of Canada ruled on September 4 that SNC-Lavalin did not qualify for this new kind of deal. At any point in time since that decision was made, has the Prime Minister expressed his support for SNC-Lavalin getting a deal, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, the respect we have for our justice system is extremely important. That is why we are carefully considering the issue of solicitor-client privilege. That is why I asked our Attorney General for advice on how to proceed in this matter so that we can give people the opportunity to speak. It is important that Canadians hear the truth.That being said, it is important to understand that there is a real danger of unintended negative consequences on the two cases currently before the courts.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives are calling into question the independence of our judicial system and the rule of law in this country.Allow me to reassure all Canadians watching by quoting directly from the director of the public prosecution service of Canada, who confirmed last week that in every case prosecutors “exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”

Mr. Speaker, it was Manitoba's turn to suffer a massive derailment involving flammable substances. With trains getting longer and running more frequently, and with deregulation on the rise, another tragedy like that of Lac-Mégantic could still happen. That much is clear. Residents are worried. They do not want to experience another tragedy like that. The Minister of Transport is all talk and no action. Could the Prime Minister direct his minister to get to work on rail safety in order to protect Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to breaking promises to Canadians, we have to hand it to the Prime Minister. Right now on the Trans Mountain pipeline fiasco he is doing a two-for-one deal. First, he promised to end all fossil fuel subsidies, but dumping $4.5 billion of our money on a 65-year old pipeline was not enough. Now the pipeline-owning Prime Minister wants a further $2 billion subsidy from Canadians. Then the Liberals promised that all pipelines would receive a climate change review as part of their approval.However, here is a new guide for Canadians when listening to the Prime Minister. Listen closely and know that the truth is the opposite. When is he going to stop helping out his friends and start working to fight climate change?

Mr. Speaker, during the December 5 meeting between Gerald Butts and the former attorney general, it is reported that Mr. Butts told her to go and see the Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick. Now, if the decision had already been made by the independent top prosecutor in Canada on September 4 and if the Prime Minister had already indicated that it was the attorney general's decision to be made, why would she have to go and visit the Clerk of the Privy Council?

Mr. Speaker, again, that was not the question. This is key to this entire affair of allegations of interference in a criminal proceeding. The Prime Minister, through an omnibus bill, gave the top prosecutor the option of using a deferred prosecution agreement, and she ruled, in her independent manner, that SNC-Lavalin did not qualify.At any point in time since that decision, has the Prime Minister expressed his support for this kind of deal for SNC-Lavalin, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the hard work of Canadians, Canada's economy is strong and growing, creating well-paying jobs for the middle class and people working hard to join it. More Canadians are working, and families have more money to spend on what matters to them. Could the Minister of Finance please update the House on the next steps in our proven plan to strengthen and grow the middle class?

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite have been talking an awful lot about solicitor-client privilege. It is also important to understand that discussions among the federal cabinet are covered by cabinet confidentiality as well. This is the work that we are doing to make sure we are delivering for Canadians in terms of good jobs, in terms of economic growth, in terms of opportunities for all, while at the same time upholding the independence of our judiciary, the integrity of our democratic institutions, and we will always do that.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the member opposite, we will always stand up for jobs, always stand up for the Canadian economy, but we will do that in ways that respect judicial independence and the rule of law. If the member does not choose to take my word for it, let him to take it directly from the director of the Public Prosecution Service, who confirmed just last week that, in every case, prosecutors “exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite seems to be concerned about the independence of the director of the Public Prosecution Service. Let me speak directly to that by quoting her, who just last week confirmed that in every case prosecutors “exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.” Canadians can know that, in this country, we continue to abide by the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I have tremendous confidence in the members of the justice committee, who will be moving forward on the investigation of all sides; and indeed in the Ethics Commissioner, who has taken this matter under investigation.At the same time, I want to, once again, thank Gerry Butts for his contributions to Canada. His letter of resignation speaks for itself. He continues to believe deeply in what this government, and this country, is doing to help everyone.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give the Prime Minister another opportunity to answer a very simple question.He brags about having many meetings and robust discussions. In any of those meetings, from the date that the director of public prosecutions made her decision to the day that he removed the former attorney general from her post, did the Prime Minister at any time express his support for granting SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is certainly not acting like someone who is innocent of these serious allegations. Once again, on September 17, he admitted that he had a meeting with the former attorney general. Canada's top prosecutor had already decided, with her independent analysis, that SNC-Lavalin was not entitled to a special deal.Once again, who asked for the meeting? There are only two options. It was either the Prime Minister or the former attorney general. Which was it?

Mr. Speaker, there we are. First it was the former attorney general's fault, then it was the director of public prosecutions' fault, then it was The Globe and Mail's fault and then it was Scott Brison's fault. Now we know it was Stephen Harper's fault. That is why he did what he did in this scandal. Nobody is buying what he is trying to sell.Now, can the Prime Minister tell this House if at any point in time he ever expressed his support for a special deal for SNC-Lavalin to the former attorney general, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister told his caucus that any communication coming from Mr. Butts should be considered as coming from the Prime Minister himself. Once again, when did the Prime Minister become aware of the December 5 meeting between Gerald Butts and the former attorney general?

Mr. Speaker, again, to hear the member opposite, Canadians might be worried about the independence of our judicial system. Allow me to reassure them not only with my words, but by a direct quote from the director of public prosecutions herself, who just last week confirmed for Canadians that in every case prosecutors “exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we are always ensuring that we protect and recover our species that are at risk. Robust recovery strategies and action plans are there to grow and sustain populations. The work that we do is always based on science and this work is always done in consultation and partnership with indigenous groups as well as all stakeholders. This is something that if we are going to do, we need to do it together. That is part of reconciliation.

Mr. Speaker, we have tremendous confidence in the processes that are in place to move forward, including an investigation by the justice committee in which committee members are independent in their decisions on how to proceed.We also have tremendous confidence in the officers of Parliament, in this case the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who will be pursuing an investigation on this matter.These are things we take seriously. Canadians need to know there are processes in place to move forward on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, the media reported this morning that the director of public prosecutions informed SNC-Lavalin on September 4, 2018, that the company would not be getting a special deal that would allow it to avoid prosecution. The Prime Minister has denied having met with the former attorney general two weeks later on September 17, 2018, to discuss this matter. Who asked for this meeting?

Mr. Speaker, if he did nothing wrong, he should be able to answer yes or no. Did he at any time tell the former attorney general that he favoured giving SNC-Lavalin a special deal, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, what day is this? Oh, it is Wednesday. It is a new day, a new excuse, a new bombshell in the Gerry Butts-SNC scandal, and this one is a doozy.It turns out that the Prime Minister met with the justice minister after they found out that the independent public prosecution would not give the free get-out-of-jail card to SNC. I wonder what happened in that meeting, because it would represent a major interference in the independence of Canada's justice system.Therefore, will the Prime Minister give us a full airing, and agree to an independent inquiry where his staff will be forced to testify?

Mr. Speaker, that was not the question. The question was who asked for the meeting between the Prime Minister and the former attorney general. We know that meeting took place on September 17. The director of public prosecutions ruled on September 4 that SNC-Lavalin would not be entitled to a special deal.Once again, who asked for the meeting? Was it the Prime Minister or the former attorney general?

Mr. Speaker, with respect to political considerations, I will repeat what the director of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada said last week. She confirmed that, in every case, prosecutors exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.Canada has an independent justice system and there will be due process. We will always defend jobs and always respect judicial independence.

Mr. Speaker, On December 5, when Gerald Butts met with the attorney general at a hotel in downtown Ottawa, it is clear that the SNC-Lavalin case was discussed. Who asked for that meeting?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot hold up the independence of the office of the director of public prosecutions and, at the same time, interfere and attempt to get a reversal of a decision.The decision on SNC-Lavalin was made on September 4. The Prime Minister had a meeting with the former attorney general on September 17. Gerald Butts had a meeting with the former attorney general on December 5.Why would the Prime Minister have so many meetings with the former attorney general if it were not to try to reverse a decision that had already been made?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just expressed his confidence in the justice committee's work to get to the bottom of this very serious scandal. Last week the government instructed Liberal members of that committee to block Conservative and NDP attempts to get a full witness list in front of the committee. The members of the committee admitted that they received that list from government offices.Therefore, if the Prime Minister has so much confidence in the justice committee's work, will he allow Gerald Butts to testify under oath at that very committee?

Mr. Speaker, again, why did the Prime Minister leave the impression with the attorney general that there was something going on? He said that the former attorney general “asked me if I was directing her, or going to direct her, to take a particular decision and I, of course, said no.” Therefore, the question remains this. Why did the former attorney general think that she needed to ask that? If the decision was already made, why would she have to go and get clarification if he was not in fact attempting to interfere?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals promised to put an end to fossil fuel subsidies, but they obviously have not.To make matters worse, they spent $4.5 billion on an old pipeline.The Liberals also promised that a climate impact assessment would be conducted for all energy projects. Now, we have learned that no such assessment will be carried out for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. I have a little tip for voters. Any time the Prime Minister promises to do something, they should expect him to do the opposite.Do the Liberals realize that they are beginning to look more and more like Pinocchio when it comes to the fight against climate change?

Mr. Speaker, this government continues to focus on the things that matter to Canadians, like delivering a Canada child benefit that helps nine out of 10 Canadian families, and moving forward by lowering taxes on the middle class and raising them on the wealthiest 1%. We continue to focus on the upcoming budget, which is going to continue to deliver for Canadians in real ways as we grow the economy in ways that work for the middle class.Unfortunately, under 10 years of Stephen Harper, the benefits to the wealthiest and the well connected did not grow the economy. That is why we have focused on the middle class and will continue to focus on delivering tangibly for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can try to hide behind talking points and other members of his Liberal team, but this is about the independence of our judicial system. This is about the rule of law.The Prime Minister has stated that there were many discussions going on, which was why the former attorney general “asked me if I was directing her, or going to direct her, to take a particular decision and I, of course, said no.”Therefore, the simple question is this. If a decision had already been made on September 4, why would she have to ask him if he was directing her?

Mr. Speaker, I recognize perhaps that it is a legacy of the Harper years. The Conservatives do not seem to understand that a team that works together actually has lots of people having meetings about things that matter all the time. We continue to engage in a broad way that both protects and upholds jobs in this country and respects the independence of our system and its judiciary. That is something we expect from all members of cabinet and all my staff, and we work together to serve Canadians, day in and day out.

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?

Mr. Speaker, we know that the former attorney general and Gerald Butts met at the Chateau Laurier on December 5, 2018, to discuss the SNC-Lavalin case.When was the Prime Minister informed of that meeting?

Again, Mr. Speaker, if he has done nothing wrong, he should be able to answer. Meetings at the Chateau Laurier between Gerald Butts and the former attorney general are not covered by cabinet confidentiality. He should be able to tell Canadians, if he has done nothing wrong, if he has not interfered in an ongoing criminal prosecution case. Has he ever told the former attorney general that he favoured a special deal for SNC-Lavalin, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, here is what we know. The director of public prosecutions formally rejected a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin on September 4. The Prime Minister met with the former justice minister two weeks later on September 17 to discuss the matter. The day after that meeting, SNC-Lavalin lobbyists met with no fewer than four ministers and senior officials. What a coincidence.With a remediation agreement ruled out, why was that meeting between the Prime Minister and the former justice minister necessary? Can the Prime Minister explain the lobbying blitz that followed?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Lac-Saint-Louis for his hard work, for his leadership in the caucus and for his question.If we want Canada to be a world leader in the new economy, we must support Canadian workers. We announced a $40-million investment to help BlackBerry QNX design and build a new platform for the cars of today and tomorrow. This investment will create 800 jobs for the middle class, will make our cars safer and will help Canada remain an international hub for innovation.

Mr. Speaker, speaking of the rule of law, a new report reveals the government has abjectly failed to consult indigenous peoples on recovery strategies for threatened species. Chief Byron Louis has shared, “The extinction of a species actually has the potential” to extinguish indigenous rights. Frustrated with government inaction, the Mikisew Cree sought intervention by UNESCO, and has joined the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation court to have their rights upheld.When will the Prime Minister stop with the platitudes and actually deliver on his legal responsibilities to first nations?

Mr. Speaker, after being lobbied by SNC-Lavalin, the government changed the Criminal Code and tried to cut a deal to avoid a trial. Two former SNC-Lavalin executives just had their corruption cases thrown out of court because of unrealistic delays, and we learned that SNC has received more than $2 billion in government aid since 2002.Will the Prime Minister recognize that crony capitalism is an unjust system that must be eradicated?

Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon the Prime Minister to provide some transparency in this very serious scandal. These are major allegations of interference in an independent prosecution.Outside of an investigation by the RCMP, the only way for the Prime Minister to clear the air is by having a public inquiry. Canadians are tired of taking his word for his version of events. They are tired of Liberals getting together with other Liberals to come up with a storyline they will then try to hide behind.Yes or no, will the Prime Minister agree to holding a public inquiry so Canadians can get answers to these questions right—

Mr. Speaker, to move forward from what?The Prime Minister is saying nothing happened. All along he has been saying nothing improper was done. All along he has been saying he did not do anything wrong and people in his office did not do anything wrong, yet we have the facts that the former attorney general was removed from her post and then resigned from cabinet, and the principal secretary has now resigned.What exactly was Mr. Butts moving on from if nothing improper happened?