Most toxic speeches
Madam Speaker, for 20 years, many countries have tried to amend an international treaty to stop developed countries from shipping garbage to developing nations, but Canada has refused to agree. The Liberal government talks about increasing recycling, but it is clear that it is not taking responsibility for where our garbage ends up. One hundred and three containers of Canadian trash have been rotting in the Philippines for four years. These containers are full of, not recycling, but diapers, food waste and discarded electronics. When will the minister end this international embarrassment and prevent Canada from shipping its garbage to developing countries?
Madam Speaker, section 139(2) of the Criminal Code says everyone who wilfully attempts in any manner....to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. The Clerk of the Privy Council has confessed that he, the Prime Minister's staff, and the Prime Minister himself have all attempted to influence the course of the SNC-Lavalin trial.If the Liberals believe they have done nothing wrong, why was the former attorney general fired, and why did Gerry Butts resign?
Madam Speaker, I know the Liberals are very uncomfortable with this very inconvenient truth. Let me repeat that subsection 139(2) of the Criminal Code says that everyone who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence.We know that the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Prime Minister and Gerry Butts wilfully attempted to have the former Attorney General interfere in the trial. That is a criminal offence. Will the justice minister admit that this constitutes a crime?
Madam Speaker, section 139(2) of the Criminal Code states, Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence.The Clerk of the Privy Council admitted that he, the Prime Minister's staff and the Prime Minister himself all attempted to influence the outcome of the SNC-Lavalin trial. That is a criminal offence. When will the Liberals admit that?
Madam Speaker, Canadians want to know. The Prime Minister has problems with his exes. His ex-attorney general wants to tell her truth. His ex-senior adviser does not want to talk. Pressure exerted by the PMO on the ex-attorney general violates section 139 of the Criminal Code.When will the Liberals realize that this is obstruction of justice? This is a crime. This is a scandal.
Madam Speaker, subsection 139(2) of the Criminal Code says, Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. We now know that the Prime Minister arranged for the Clerk of the Privy Council and his principal secretary to get the former attorney general to interfere in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. This was a sustained effort to avoid a trial. How are the actions of the Prime Minister not criminal?
Madam Speaker, well, let us look at the record. Section 139(2) of the Criminal Code says, Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. The Clerk of the Privy Council admitted that he, the Prime Minister's staff and the Prime Minister himself all attempted to influence the outcome of the SNC trial. That is a criminal offence. When will the Liberals admit that?
Madam Speaker, we have listened carefully to the Liberals' comments from the beginning of this saga.We now know, and these are clear facts, that the Prime Minister's Office, the Clerk of the Privy Council and even the Prime Minister tried on several occasions to get the former attorney general to intervene in the case against SNC-Lavalin.Section 139 of the Criminal Code clearly sets out the following as a criminal offence: 139 (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding... When will the Prime Minister finally admit that he wilfully tried to obstruct the course of justice?
Madam Speaker, on September 4, the office of the public prosecutor informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be moving forward with the criminal trial. On September 17, the former attorney general told the Prime Minister that she would not interfere in the criminal trial. That should have been the end. However, after that meeting, the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's principal secretary tried to get the former attorney general to interfere in the trial.When will the Prime Minister realize that this obstruction of justice is a criminal offence?
Madam Speaker, every single week an energy company is laying off hundreds of workers or leaving the country altogether, and every week we get inaction and platitudes by the Prime Minister. This week, Steelhead LNG shelved its pipeline in B.C. and Devon Energy announced it is selling its Canadian assets and exiting the country. Why, when it comes to 120,000 unemployed energy workers or a convoy of Canadians who come to Ottawa to fight for their jobs, will this Prime Minister not lift a finger? Why will he not fight for everyone?
Madam Speaker, the Criminal Code states that any attempt to obstruct a judicial proceeding is a crime.On September 4, SNC-Lavalin learned that its criminal trial would go forward. On September 17, the former AG told the PM that she would not interfere in that trial. Now we have learned that three months later, the PM's principal secretary and the Clerk of the Privy Council continued to have discussions with her about interfering.Is it ignorance or arrogance that keeps the Liberals from realizing just how much this looks like obstruction of justice?
Madam Speaker, last weekend hundreds of workers gathered on the Prairies in support of new construction for new pipelines. They are fed up with Liberal excuses. They gathered because they do not want to hear any more Liberal excuses, they do not want the procrastination to continue, and they cannot afford the Prime Minister's mistakes.If the Liberals will not listen to us about killing their anti-pipeline bill, Bill C-69, will they at least listen to the tens of thousands of energy workers who want this bill killed and stopped immediately?
Once again, the Conservatives do not listen. They continue speaking when I have the floor.
Madam Speaker, people in Pelican Narrows are suffering from a lack of affordable and accessible housing. The community has 266 new housing requests but only the funding to complete three, and that does not include the requests for home renovations.While the Liberals brag about their housing strategy, people in Pelican Narrows are still waiting for a place to call home. They cannot and should not wait any longer.Will the Liberals stop waiting and immediately invest in housing for the people of Pelican Narrows?
Madam Speaker, on September 4, 2018, SNC-Lavalin was informed that the trial would proceed. On September 17, 2018, the former attorney general decided not to interfere in this matter, but we know that government actors attempted to intervene. Section 139 of the Criminal Code states that every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence.When will the Liberals realize that this is obstruction of justice?
Madam Speaker, on September 4, the director of public prosecution refused to offer a deferred prosecution agreement to SNC-Lavalin. On September 17, the attorney general said that she would not reverse that decision. During the next several months, a concerted effort was made by the Prime Minister and his senior officials to make her change her mind. The Criminal Code is clear: Every one who wilfully attempts, in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. With everything we now know, how is this not obstruction of justice by the Prime Minister?
Madam Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed what veterans knew and the Prime Minister denied. The pension for life scheme falls so short of what veterans were promised that it is reprehensible to Canadians. The report sent a shudder throughout the veterans community by revealing our most severely and permanently injured will receive, on average, $300,000 less under the Liberal pension scam. Why must Canada's most vulnerable injured soldiers and their families pay for the Prime Minister's mistakes?
Madam Speaker, I just finished a tour of the Trans Mountain pipeline, and I heard disappointment from so many people. Construction camps were abandoned. We have massive piles of pipe just waiting to be installed. First nations entrepreneurs are losing money, and planned projects have been put on hold because of the Prime Minister's mistakes. After we paid $4.6 billion, one billion dollars over the sticker price, my constituents need reassurance that there will be shovels in the ground before October 2019. Running out the clock is not an option.
Madam Speaker, when the former attorney general was fired, she emphasized the need for an independent judicial system. Why?When the Prime Minister's chief adviser Gerry Butts resigned, he highlighted the former attorney general. Why?When the former attorney general stood in the House this week, she asked to be allowed to speak her truth. Why?Why will the Prime Minister not let her speak her truth and let Canadians get to the bottom of all this?
Madam Speaker, for eight months, Trump has been holding businesses hostage by imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum exports. Meanwhile, Russia asked for lower tariffs and got them. We are wondering what the Liberals are doing on this file.In my riding, SNOC, Tuba and Norbec are being hard hit by the Liberals' NAFTA 2.0.It is having an impact on local businesses, workers and their families.What do the Liberals have to say to those people?
Madam Speaker, I hope that all members of the House saw the report last week indicating that in the past 20 years, more than 600 people, in 30 different sports, have been abused. Now is the time that we need to stand up as a country, united in ending abuse, discrimination and harassment in sport. Could the Minister of Science and Sport update the House on what our government is doing to stop this problem that affects so many Canadians?
Madam Speaker, there are indeed two sets of rules: one that increased taxes for the richest 1% in 2016, which the NDP opposed, and another that lowered taxes for the middle class. There is also the rule about not sending cheques to millionaire parents who do not need the money and enhancing the Canada child benefit for nine in 10 families, which was implemented in July 2016. Unfortunately, the NDP also did not support this rule to help middle-class families.
Madam Speaker, Canadians can have confidence that the government will always fight for Canadians. Canadians can have confidence in their institutions.I find it fascinating that the member seems to forget that the company actually met with his leader, the leader of the NDP. No differently, the company met with the leader of the Conservatives.What I also find fascinating, as he provides his commentary, is that yesterday he was on a panel, with other members of the committee, and he was saying, Why don't you have confidence in the members of the justice committee? We do. Let them do their work.
Madam Speaker, families, young people and seniors are struggling to pay their bills. They have to contend with the high cost of housing, health care and day care. They are wondering why the Prime Minister is not working hard to make life easier for them instead of bending backwards to give the rich a free ride. When rich executives ask for help, the Liberals jump to attention; when ordinary Canadians need help, they are told to wait.Why are there two sets of rules, one for the rich and another for the rest of us?
Madam Speaker, the Liberal saga continues.Here are the facts. On September 4, the office of the director of public prosecutions informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be moving forward with the case. On September 17, the former attorney general told the Prime Minister she would not interfere in the criminal trial. Yesterday, the Clerk of the Privy Council admitted that the Prime Minister tried to interfere in the process several times. That is a crime.When will the Liberals admit it?
Madam Speaker, the Liberals do not seem to understand that reconciliation means housing is a human right. This week they announced funding that represented less than 2% of their national housing strategy to tackle the homelessness crisis of indigenous people in urban centres.Experts have been clear: We need way more than that to address this urgent housing crisis and to solve the fundamental causes of homelessness in urban areas. One in 15 indigenous peoples living in cities is homeless.When will the Liberal government step up with a real plan to address this crisis?
Madam Speaker, again, yesterday at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the clerk also confirmed that the Prime Minister clearly said at every opportunity that the decision was the justice minister's to make.It has to be said that the Conservatives keep speaking out of both sides of their mouths. In French they claim they have no intention of jeopardizing jobs at SNC-Lavalin, as that hon. member said, but in English, the hon. member for Carleton said he wanted to shut down this company and was not afraid to say so.Their constant doublespeak has to stop.
Madam Speaker, according to the Criminal Code, everyone who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding is guilty of a crime. We now know that the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's top adviser attempted to force the former attorney general to interfere in the criminal trial of SNC-Lavalin after she told the Prime Minister she would not. The Prime Minister is complicit in these actions. When will the Liberals admit their crime?
Madam Speaker, public transit is a perfect example of how little the federal government understands about Quebec's actual needs. From Saguenay to Longueuil to Trois-Rivières, every one of our cities has infrastructure needs, but federal investment is proportional to ridership on existing public transit networks. The problem is that if the service is not available, there are no riders. There has to be a bus for people to get on.Why won't the federal government just transfer the infrastructure money to Quebec? Afterwards, we can figure things out for ourselves.
Madam Speaker, as long as we are looking at the facts, let me also remind the House that section 139 of the Criminal Code states that every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding is guilty of a crime. The law is clear, and it is unacceptable that the Clerk of the Privy Council tried to get the former attorney general to intervene in the judicial process. When will they realize that their actions are an obstruction of justice and a crime?
Madam Speaker, he said, No pressure, we'll fire you if you don't do what we say, but no pressure. The decision is entirely yours.Here is the chronology we now know. The former attorney general told the Prime Minister on September 17 that she would not push for a special deal for SNC-Lavalin, yet he sent his top adviser on December 5 and his top bureaucrat on December 19 to change her mind. When she did not, she was moved out of the position. Why did the government and the Prime Minister attempt to change the course of justice in this case?
Madam Speaker, the Criminal Code is clear that everyone who attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. The public prosecutor informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be proceeding with a criminal trial. The former attorney general said she would not interfere. We know that the PMO, the Clerk of the Privy Council and even the Prime Minister attempted, on several occasions, to get the former attorney general to interfere in the trial. Is that not obstruction of justice?
Madam Speaker, with the high cost of student loans, day care and rent, many young Canadians are finding it extremely difficult to achieve the dream of home ownership.Through a series of rule changes by the former Conservative government, the maximum term for insured mortgages went from 40 years to 25 years. Instead of making it easier for first-time homebuyers, Liberals further tightened mortgage rules. This is the same old story: While they make life easier for corporate friends, Liberals are shutting out young families from owning their own homes. Will the Liberal government put young families first and commit to introducing a 30-year term on insured mortgages?
Madam Speaker, there were 50 meetings between executives of a company at the highest levels of the Liberal government, and an engineering company meeting on what? Justice issues. That is time the Prime Minister could have spent finding real solutions to our housing crisis, fighting to make medication more inexpensive for Canadians and helping the people in the country who are only $200 away from not being able to pay their bills.When the Liberal government has rich friends knocking at the door, boy does it find time to meet them. However, when Canadians need help, they are told to wait. Why will Liberals not just come clean and tell us who they are really working for?
Madam Speaker, the uncertainty surrounding the government's intentions for the SNC-Lavalin file is having real consequences. Today, the company reported a $1.6-billion loss in the last quarter. At this rate, a fire sale or layoffs cannot be far behind.The government urgently needs to take action.A remediation agreement would punish the culprits, instead of collectively penalizing workers who have done absolutely nothing wrong.When is the government going to start negotiations? Is it waiting until thousands of people lose their jobs?
Madam Speaker, the illegal and unjustified U.S. tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum must be lifted. U.S. lawmakers have asked Ambassador Lighthizer to lift those tariffs. This weekend, the minister raised the issue with members of the U.S. Congress, including Nancy Pelosi, who confirmed that our counter-measures are having an impact. Our plan is working. Recently, Republican Kevin Brady indicated that the tariffs would have to be lifted before Congress considers the new NAFTA.
Madam Speaker, a recent article in The Globe and Mail made it clear that Canadian economists are virtually unanimous in the view that a price on pollution reduces greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest possible cost to the economy. They also went on to identify another fact: Under the federal policy that begins this spring, roughly 80 per cent of households will receive rebates that actually exceed the amount they will pay. Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment please clarify why Conservative politicians, not just these Conservative politicians but others as well, are misrepresenting academic research and vastly overstating the costs for average Canadians?
Madam Speaker, that is not evidence. That is the member's speculation. That is the member drawing his own conclusions and this is exactly why Canadians are finding it challenging. Canadians should have confidence in their institutions and that is why we will not undermine the work of committees. We will not undermine the work of officers of Parliament. We respect the independent judicial system because Canadians should have and can have confidence in the independent bodies. Canadians should know that members of Parliament are asking tough questions to witnesses. Witnesses are appearing and answering those questions.
Madam Speaker, Canada is concerned by the escalation of tensions in Egypt. We have been alarmed by the reaction of security forces during recent peaceful demonstrations and the recent arrests of activists and politicians. We call on all parties in Egypt to exercise restraint, denounce hateful speech and engage in peaceful dialogue.
Madam Speaker, after 10 years of inaction under Stephen Harper, 99% of our oil exports were still sold to the United States. The Conservatives' approach failed, and they are doubling down on that approach with their disregard for the courts, with no plan to protect the environment and coastal communities and with no plan to meaningfully engage in a two-way dialogue with indigenous peoples. They disregard the courts. We are following the path that has been provided by the Federal Court of Appeal and we are going to do so in the right way.
Madam Speaker, as we have said many times and as we have told Mayor Labeaume, we will contribute to the Quebec City tramway. We have offered Quebec over $1 billion for the project. We are still waiting for an answer from the government. In the meantime, we will keep supporting priorities on behalf of Quebeckers.
Madam Speaker, I am simply drawing facts from that very committee. We know the Prime Minister found out from his Attorney General that she would not give SNC-Lavalin a special deal. That set in place the course of justice, yet the Prime Minister then sent his top adviser to meet with her at the Chateau Laurier lounge and then his top bureaucrat to call her over the phone to try to change that course of justice. When she refused, he removed her from her position.Why did the Prime Minister attempt to defeat the course of justice in this case?
Madam Speaker, we are following the clear path provided by the Federal Court of Appeal in order to move in the right way, through meaningful consultations. The report was clear that we need to do a better job in consulting indigenous peoples, something that the Conservatives ignored for 10 years, and we need to account for the impact on marine shipping. That is the path that we are taking. We are taking the time to get this right and we are not cutting corners like the Conservatives did.
Madam Speaker, it is important that Canadians have confidence in their institutions. That is exactly why members from both sides who sit on the justice committee worked together to call witnesses. They came to committee, the members were able to ask them questions and they answered them. We have confidence in the members' work on the justice committee. I think they must do their work.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Pontiac for his advocacy on the climate and environment files over these past few years.The fact is that climate change is real, and we have an opportunity and an obligation to do something about it. The opposition has been spending a lot of time misleading Canadians about our climate plan, because, quite frankly, it does not have one of its own to talk about. We made a commitment to Canadians that we were going to take climate change seriously and do it in a way that makes life more affordable. We have established a plan that is going to put more money in the pockets of eight out of 10 families in jurisdictions where this plan applies. We are working with Canadians on the best ways to cut pollution, and we are going to take no lessons from the opposition, which has no plan on how to contribute to the fight against climate change.
Madam Speaker, when it comes to the Prime Minister's former principal secretary, he has issued a public letter. He has made that letter available for all Canadians to read and hear his reasons.When it comes to the justice committee, the justice committee has asked for witnesses to appear. Members on both sides of the aisle have worked together to have those witnesses appear. We know that witnesses are appearing. Members are asking questions. We think the committee should do its important work. Members opposite choose to speculate. We are a fact-based government. We will let the facts speak for themselves.
Madam Speaker, the misconduct of a Canadian company abroad has recently created some political controversy. More than a year ago, the government announced a Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise to investigate such conduct. Unfortunately, no ombudsperson has been appointed. When asked yesterday, the minister said that the appointment will be announced soon.Can the government commit to appoint an ombudsperson before the House rises this spring?
Madam Speaker, February 12 was International Day Against the Use of Child Soldiers. It is a day to remember that we must protect children from the risk of participating in the horrors of armed conflict.Can the Minister of National Defence update the House on the progress our government is making on Roméo Dallaire's initiative to prevent the use of child soldiers and our re-engagement with the United Nations?
Madam Speaker, today SNC-Lavalin reported billions in losses and said this was attributable to the dispute with Saudi Arabia. The company and senior Liberal officials ramped up their lobbying efforts last year, at the same time that the government was having its Twitter dispute with Saudi Arabia.Did the Liberals bow to corporate pressure because their foreign policy failures were leading to billions in losses?
Madam Speaker, the very difficult circumstances many Canadians, and certainly many indigenous Canadians, find themselves in when it comes to finding an affordable place to call home is something of great concern to this government and has been since the very start of our mandate. That is why in budget 2016, for the first time in 17 years, we increased the budget to fight homelessness in Canada and doubled it.That is not the end of the story. Just a few months ago, we announced the first ever national housing strategy, which is going to change the way in which indigenous Canadians across all of Canada will be able to access a safe and affordable place to call home.
Madam Speaker, developing public transportation in Quebec is a pain in the behind, and it is the federal government's fault.Quebec City cannot build its tramway because Ottawa decided on its own which infrastructure projects it would fund. There is no way to get money from other programs, since Ottawa still imposes conditions. It has money, it collects half of our taxes, but the second criterion in paragraph 4 has not been met.Why does the government not transfer the infrastructure money to Quebec in a lump sum?
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. This has been my priority since I became Minister of Sport.Last June, we announced strong measures to end abuse, discrimination and harassment in sport. Last week, sport ministers from across the country signed a declaration that will create a systemic culture shift in sport, and yesterday I announced the development of a universal code of conduct that our sport partners, such as CAAWS, said that they were thrilled to see.We must put an end to abuse.
Madam Speaker, if the Liberal government truly cared about protecting workers and jobs, why was it not there for Sears, Rona and Davie shipyard workers? Where was the government?The Liberals' track record speaks for itself. They help rich corporate executives, and the workers have to fend for themselves. The Liberal government has two sets of rules: one set for the wealthy and one set for everyone else.Why do the Liberals not stand up for our workers who have been left behind, instead of helping their buddies skirt the law?
Madam Speaker, we know that the company is doing business right around the world and, in conducting that business, employing many thousands of Canadians. It is very important economic development.We also know that we have embarked on a very aggressive trade diversification strategy. We meet with companies around the world to take the best advantage of that. We believe that Canada is better positioned now to be a leader in international trade than it ever has been before.
Madam Speaker, this week, nine men were executed in Egypt after a grossly unfair trial.These executions reflect the serious worsening of the human rights situation in Egypt, where the government is cracking down on human rights activists, journalists, members of the LGBTQ community and basically anyone who dares to publicly criticize Egypt's military dictatorship.When will the minister break her silence and exert pressure on Egyptian authorities to uphold human rights and the rule of law?
Madam Speaker, our country is strongly committed to collaborating with the Philippines government to resolve this issue and is aware of the court decision ordering the importer to ship the material back to Canada. Currently, a joint technical working group is being established, consisting of officials from both countries, to examine the full spectrum of issues related to the removal of the waste. In 2016, we actually amended our own regulations on hazardous waste shipments to prevent this kind of event from happening again. We are committed to working collaboratively to ensure that the material is processed in a more environmentally sustainable way.
Madam Speaker, as I said in the other official language but I will repeat once again, this matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee. The member should listen closely, because I have been giving the same answer since the beginning of question period.We know that the justice committee has called in witnesses. We know that members on both sides are asking questions, and the witnesses are answering them.The commissioner and the committee must do their work, and we encourage them to do so.
Madam Speaker, I hope Canadians are noticing that the Conservatives continue asking the exact same question, and when I am providing the answer, they start yelling so they can never hear the answer, and then they continue getting up and asking the same question, so I will answer it again, and maybe they will listen.Just last week, the director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors, in every case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration. Yesterday the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the PMO and the DPP.
Madam Speaker, we have said that we on this side of the aisle, the Liberal Party, support the work of the committee. We support the independence of committees. That is exactly why as a government, we have increased the resources of committees because they need to do that important work. The matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee. When it comes to officers of Parliament, we respect their independence and we believe they should do the important work. We respect the independence of the judicial system. A clear difference between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party is that we will not undermine our institutions, like those members choose to continue doing.
Madam Speaker, we on this side will always defend and uphold the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law. We know that this matter is being looked at by both the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee.Once again, we know that this matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee. We have confidence in our institutions. We have confidence in officers of Parliament. We have confidence in the independence of the judicial system. We believe that they should be able to do their work.
Madam Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring our veterans receive the benefits and support that they deserve. The needs of Canada's veterans have changed significantly over the past 100 years since the Pension Act was introduced, and our support needs to change with it. Thanks to our government's $10-billion investments, all veterans today, including the most vulnerable, are better off than they were under the Harper Conservatives.
Madam Speaker, once again, I encourage all members and all Canadians to really listen to what the witnesses who appeared before the committee said, but we need to look at the facts. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that, in this and every other case, prosecutors exercise their discretion independently. The deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the PMO and the DPP.
Madam Speaker, for many Canadians, investing in a home is the biggest investment of their lives.We know how important it is to their financial well-being for that investment to be protected. That is why we took measures to limit the risks in the housing market and make it easier to access long-term financing.Since taking office, we have been focused on giving more tools to middle-class families and young people and more money to those who need it most to help them achieve financial balance, stability, and prosperity.
Madam Speaker, on September 4, 2018, the office of the director of public prosecutions informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be pursuing criminal charges. On September 17, 2018, the former attorney general told the Prime Minister that she would not intervene to influence the decision of the director of public prosecutions. That should have been the end of it, but it was not.We now know that the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister tried to interfere on several occasions to get the former attorney general to intervene in the judicial process. How can it be argued that their actions do not constitute obstruction of justice and are not a crime?
Madam Speaker, our government recognizes the unacceptable gaps in housing on reserve and in indigenous communities. After decades of neglect and underfunding by the Conservative government, our government is taking action. For first nations housing on reserve alone, we have committed more than $1 billion, with more than 15,000 housing units being built and renovated. We have also rolled out distinctions-based housing for indigenous communities: $600 million for first nations, $500 million for Métis and $400 million for Inuit.
Madam Speaker, the member was here under 10 years of Stephen Harper when they undermined the work of committees. What is clear is that the Conservatives have chosen a new leader, but their approach to democracy remains exactly the same, and Canadians are noticing. We on this side have increased resources to committees, because we respect our institutions. Canadians should have confidence in their institutions, and that is what we will continue to do. When it comes to officers of Parliament, this side will always respect their work. When it comes to the independent judicial system, we will encourage it to do its work. When it comes to the work of committees, like the justice committee, they are doing their work. Let us let them do their work.
Madam Speaker, I have stated for the record, and I will do it again, that the Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that at every opportunity, verbally and in writing, in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was a decision for the minister of justice to take.We take seriously the responsibility of standing up for jobs and growing the economy. We will always defend and uphold the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law.This matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee. We will work with them. We think they should get to do their work independently of the chamber.
Madam Speaker, now we are being asked the same question in French. We are proud to be a bilingual country.Let us look at the facts. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently. The deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the Prime Minister's Office and the DPP. The Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that, at every opportunity, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was a decision for the Minister of Justice to take.
Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Clerk of the Privy Council admitted that at a September 17 meeting the former attorney general told the Prime Minister that she had decided not to overturn the prosecutor's decision and give SNC-Lavalin a deal to avoid trial. That was the course of justice. However, the Prime Minister sent his top bureaucrat and then separately his top adviser to change that decision and alter the course of justice. When she refused, she was fired. Why?
Madam Speaker, the justice committee has been working together with members on both sides to have witnesses appear. Members on both sides are asking questions. Witnesses are answering those questions.The member chooses to continue speculating and drawing his own conclusions. On this side, we have confidence in the work of members of the committee. We are the government that increased resources for committees so that they could do this important work. It is fascinating to me that the member seems to have no regard for the work of the committee, because it is doing that work. He was there asking for witnesses to appear and now that they are, he seems to be undermining them.
Madam Speaker, as I said, the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are doing their job. They have called in witnesses, and the witnesses arrived yesterday. I believe the committee meetings will continue next week.Let us look at the facts. The director of the Public Prosecution Service has confirmed that, in each and every case, prosecutors exercise their discretion independently. The deputy minister of justice confirmed that there is no direct communication in any
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to remind my hon. Bloc Québécois colleague that the agreement with Quebec on public transportation provides for $5.2 billion to be transferred to Quebec. This is 26.2% of the total amount, even though the population of Quebec represents 23.23%. This is the largest transfer per capita. Quebec has significant needs in terms of public transportation. We are committed to Quebec, when it comes to federal funding.
Madam Speaker, he is one of the newer members on that side, and already he is speculating, just like the rest of them. The member should be encouraged to let the justice committee do its important work. The justice committee has members from both sides on it. They are working together to bring witnesses to that committee. Witnesses are appearing. Members are asking tough questions, and they are getting answers. We on this side have confidence in the work committees do in this place, and we will continue to do that, but we should let the record show that just last week, the director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan interference.
Madam Speaker, I will quote once again. Just last last week, the director of the public prosecution service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration. Yesterday, when asked at justice committee if it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials to discuss the matter with the Attorney General, the Attorney General confirmed those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.I encourage members opposite to stop speculating. The justice committee is doing its work. It is bringing forward witnesses. It is working hard. Let us let it do its work.
Madam Speaker, the government believes that Canadians who have lived quiet, dedicated lives deserve peace of mind in retirement. I would like to point out that our government has created more than 800,000 jobs through the platform it has implemented over the past three years. Canada's unemployment rate is among the lowest in decades, and our government continues to help create good jobs for Canadians, for families, so that they can feel secure and safe.
Madam Speaker, as the hon. member full well knows, matters of solicitor-client privilege are exceptionally complex, particularly in this sort of case. We are working to try to find a way such that the former attorney general can in fact speak. We are doing our level best to do that.
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.As she knows, yesterday, I reiterated in the House and elsewhere that this is a delicate issue. As Attorney General of Canada, I cannot comment on a subject that could have an impact on a matter that is before the courts, as this one is.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member of Parliament for LavalLes Îles for his hard work. In 2017, we launched the Vancouver principles on peacekeeping and the prevention of the recruitment and the use of child soldiers, developed alongside the Roméo Dallaire child soldiers initiative.Earlier this month, I attended a workshop with more than 120 member states and international partners that will provide practical advice on how to train forces on peacekeeping operations and how to best support them when they come home.The Vancouver principles, which have the support of 71 states, are a clear example of how our government is re-engaging with the United Nations and promoting peace and security around the world.
Madam Speaker, we know that the protection of human rights abroad and Canada's commitment within its corporate community to behave with the absolute best of ethical standards are values that all members of the House share. We also know that we are going to appoint the first-ever ombudsperson for corporate social responsibility, and as I said yesterday, that appointment will be announced soon.
Madam Speaker, let us look at the record. Just last week, the director of public prosecution service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration. Yesterday, the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the PMO and the DPP. The Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that at every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that the decision was for the minister of justice to take.
Madam Speaker, yesterday, also at justice committee the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed, At every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was the decision for the Minister of Justice to take.
Madam Speaker, just last week, the director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors, in every case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.Yesterday the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication, in any specific case, between the PMO and the DPP. The Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that At every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was the decision for the Minister of Justice to take.
Madam Speaker, our government has been steadfast in its commitment to do the hard work necessary to move forward in the right way on TMX by following the guidance from the Federal Court of Appeal. Today the National Energy Board will release its reconsideration report, and that marks an important milestone. We continue to do the work in consulting with first nations, ensuring that where accommodations are possible and reasonable, we will do so. At this moment, we have around eight teams on the ground, meeting with the communities. As well, we have had over 80 meetings with the communities as we move forward with this project in the right way.
Madam Speaker, for 20 years, many countries have tried to amend an international treaty to stop developed countries from shipping garbage to developing nations, but Canada has refused to agree. The Liberal government talks about increasing recycling, but it is clear that it is not taking responsibility for where our garbage ends up. One hundred and three containers of Canadian trash have been rotting in the Philippines for four years. These containers are full of, not recycling, but diapers, food waste and discarded electronics. When will the minister end this international embarrassment and prevent Canada from shipping its garbage to developing countries?
Madam Speaker, section 139(2) of the Criminal Code says everyone who wilfully attempts in any manner....to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. The Clerk of the Privy Council has confessed that he, the Prime Minister's staff, and the Prime Minister himself have all attempted to influence the course of the SNC-Lavalin trial.If the Liberals believe they have done nothing wrong, why was the former attorney general fired, and why did Gerry Butts resign?
Madam Speaker, I know the Liberals are very uncomfortable with this very inconvenient truth. Let me repeat that subsection 139(2) of the Criminal Code says that everyone who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence.We know that the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Prime Minister and Gerry Butts wilfully attempted to have the former Attorney General interfere in the trial. That is a criminal offence. Will the justice minister admit that this constitutes a crime?
Madam Speaker, section 139(2) of the Criminal Code states, Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence.The Clerk of the Privy Council admitted that he, the Prime Minister's staff and the Prime Minister himself all attempted to influence the outcome of the SNC-Lavalin trial. That is a criminal offence. When will the Liberals admit that?
Madam Speaker, Canadians want to know. The Prime Minister has problems with his exes. His ex-attorney general wants to tell her truth. His ex-senior adviser does not want to talk. Pressure exerted by the PMO on the ex-attorney general violates section 139 of the Criminal Code.When will the Liberals realize that this is obstruction of justice? This is a crime. This is a scandal.
Madam Speaker, subsection 139(2) of the Criminal Code says, Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. We now know that the Prime Minister arranged for the Clerk of the Privy Council and his principal secretary to get the former attorney general to interfere in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. This was a sustained effort to avoid a trial. How are the actions of the Prime Minister not criminal?
Madam Speaker, well, let us look at the record. Section 139(2) of the Criminal Code says, Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. The Clerk of the Privy Council admitted that he, the Prime Minister's staff and the Prime Minister himself all attempted to influence the outcome of the SNC trial. That is a criminal offence. When will the Liberals admit that?
Madam Speaker, we have listened carefully to the Liberals' comments from the beginning of this saga.We now know, and these are clear facts, that the Prime Minister's Office, the Clerk of the Privy Council and even the Prime Minister tried on several occasions to get the former attorney general to intervene in the case against SNC-Lavalin.Section 139 of the Criminal Code clearly sets out the following as a criminal offence: 139 (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding... When will the Prime Minister finally admit that he wilfully tried to obstruct the course of justice?
Madam Speaker, on September 4, the office of the public prosecutor informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be moving forward with the criminal trial. On September 17, the former attorney general told the Prime Minister that she would not interfere in the criminal trial. That should have been the end. However, after that meeting, the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's principal secretary tried to get the former attorney general to interfere in the trial.When will the Prime Minister realize that this obstruction of justice is a criminal offence?
Madam Speaker, every single week an energy company is laying off hundreds of workers or leaving the country altogether, and every week we get inaction and platitudes by the Prime Minister. This week, Steelhead LNG shelved its pipeline in B.C. and Devon Energy announced it is selling its Canadian assets and exiting the country. Why, when it comes to 120,000 unemployed energy workers or a convoy of Canadians who come to Ottawa to fight for their jobs, will this Prime Minister not lift a finger? Why will he not fight for everyone?
Madam Speaker, the Criminal Code states that any attempt to obstruct a judicial proceeding is a crime.On September 4, SNC-Lavalin learned that its criminal trial would go forward. On September 17, the former AG told the PM that she would not interfere in that trial. Now we have learned that three months later, the PM's principal secretary and the Clerk of the Privy Council continued to have discussions with her about interfering.Is it ignorance or arrogance that keeps the Liberals from realizing just how much this looks like obstruction of justice?
Madam Speaker, last weekend hundreds of workers gathered on the Prairies in support of new construction for new pipelines. They are fed up with Liberal excuses. They gathered because they do not want to hear any more Liberal excuses, they do not want the procrastination to continue, and they cannot afford the Prime Minister's mistakes.If the Liberals will not listen to us about killing their anti-pipeline bill, Bill C-69, will they at least listen to the tens of thousands of energy workers who want this bill killed and stopped immediately?
Once again, the Conservatives do not listen. They continue speaking when I have the floor.
Madam Speaker, people in Pelican Narrows are suffering from a lack of affordable and accessible housing. The community has 266 new housing requests but only the funding to complete three, and that does not include the requests for home renovations.While the Liberals brag about their housing strategy, people in Pelican Narrows are still waiting for a place to call home. They cannot and should not wait any longer.Will the Liberals stop waiting and immediately invest in housing for the people of Pelican Narrows?
Madam Speaker, on September 4, 2018, SNC-Lavalin was informed that the trial would proceed. On September 17, 2018, the former attorney general decided not to interfere in this matter, but we know that government actors attempted to intervene. Section 139 of the Criminal Code states that every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence.When will the Liberals realize that this is obstruction of justice?
Madam Speaker, on September 4, the director of public prosecution refused to offer a deferred prosecution agreement to SNC-Lavalin. On September 17, the attorney general said that she would not reverse that decision. During the next several months, a concerted effort was made by the Prime Minister and his senior officials to make her change her mind. The Criminal Code is clear: Every one who wilfully attempts, in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. With everything we now know, how is this not obstruction of justice by the Prime Minister?
Madam Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed what veterans knew and the Prime Minister denied. The pension for life scheme falls so short of what veterans were promised that it is reprehensible to Canadians. The report sent a shudder throughout the veterans community by revealing our most severely and permanently injured will receive, on average, $300,000 less under the Liberal pension scam. Why must Canada's most vulnerable injured soldiers and their families pay for the Prime Minister's mistakes?
Madam Speaker, I just finished a tour of the Trans Mountain pipeline, and I heard disappointment from so many people. Construction camps were abandoned. We have massive piles of pipe just waiting to be installed. First nations entrepreneurs are losing money, and planned projects have been put on hold because of the Prime Minister's mistakes. After we paid $4.6 billion, one billion dollars over the sticker price, my constituents need reassurance that there will be shovels in the ground before October 2019. Running out the clock is not an option.
Madam Speaker, when the former attorney general was fired, she emphasized the need for an independent judicial system. Why?When the Prime Minister's chief adviser Gerry Butts resigned, he highlighted the former attorney general. Why?When the former attorney general stood in the House this week, she asked to be allowed to speak her truth. Why?Why will the Prime Minister not let her speak her truth and let Canadians get to the bottom of all this?
Madam Speaker, for eight months, Trump has been holding businesses hostage by imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum exports. Meanwhile, Russia asked for lower tariffs and got them. We are wondering what the Liberals are doing on this file.In my riding, SNOC, Tuba and Norbec are being hard hit by the Liberals' NAFTA 2.0.It is having an impact on local businesses, workers and their families.What do the Liberals have to say to those people?
Madam Speaker, I hope that all members of the House saw the report last week indicating that in the past 20 years, more than 600 people, in 30 different sports, have been abused. Now is the time that we need to stand up as a country, united in ending abuse, discrimination and harassment in sport. Could the Minister of Science and Sport update the House on what our government is doing to stop this problem that affects so many Canadians?
Madam Speaker, there are indeed two sets of rules: one that increased taxes for the richest 1% in 2016, which the NDP opposed, and another that lowered taxes for the middle class. There is also the rule about not sending cheques to millionaire parents who do not need the money and enhancing the Canada child benefit for nine in 10 families, which was implemented in July 2016. Unfortunately, the NDP also did not support this rule to help middle-class families.
Madam Speaker, Canadians can have confidence that the government will always fight for Canadians. Canadians can have confidence in their institutions.I find it fascinating that the member seems to forget that the company actually met with his leader, the leader of the NDP. No differently, the company met with the leader of the Conservatives.What I also find fascinating, as he provides his commentary, is that yesterday he was on a panel, with other members of the committee, and he was saying, Why don't you have confidence in the members of the justice committee? We do. Let them do their work.
Madam Speaker, families, young people and seniors are struggling to pay their bills. They have to contend with the high cost of housing, health care and day care. They are wondering why the Prime Minister is not working hard to make life easier for them instead of bending backwards to give the rich a free ride. When rich executives ask for help, the Liberals jump to attention; when ordinary Canadians need help, they are told to wait.Why are there two sets of rules, one for the rich and another for the rest of us?
Madam Speaker, the Liberal saga continues.Here are the facts. On September 4, the office of the director of public prosecutions informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be moving forward with the case. On September 17, the former attorney general told the Prime Minister she would not interfere in the criminal trial. Yesterday, the Clerk of the Privy Council admitted that the Prime Minister tried to interfere in the process several times. That is a crime.When will the Liberals admit it?
Madam Speaker, the Liberals do not seem to understand that reconciliation means housing is a human right. This week they announced funding that represented less than 2% of their national housing strategy to tackle the homelessness crisis of indigenous people in urban centres.Experts have been clear: We need way more than that to address this urgent housing crisis and to solve the fundamental causes of homelessness in urban areas. One in 15 indigenous peoples living in cities is homeless.When will the Liberal government step up with a real plan to address this crisis?
Madam Speaker, again, yesterday at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the clerk also confirmed that the Prime Minister clearly said at every opportunity that the decision was the justice minister's to make.It has to be said that the Conservatives keep speaking out of both sides of their mouths. In French they claim they have no intention of jeopardizing jobs at SNC-Lavalin, as that hon. member said, but in English, the hon. member for Carleton said he wanted to shut down this company and was not afraid to say so.Their constant doublespeak has to stop.
Madam Speaker, according to the Criminal Code, everyone who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding is guilty of a crime. We now know that the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's top adviser attempted to force the former attorney general to interfere in the criminal trial of SNC-Lavalin after she told the Prime Minister she would not. The Prime Minister is complicit in these actions. When will the Liberals admit their crime?
Madam Speaker, public transit is a perfect example of how little the federal government understands about Quebec's actual needs. From Saguenay to Longueuil to Trois-Rivières, every one of our cities has infrastructure needs, but federal investment is proportional to ridership on existing public transit networks. The problem is that if the service is not available, there are no riders. There has to be a bus for people to get on.Why won't the federal government just transfer the infrastructure money to Quebec? Afterwards, we can figure things out for ourselves.
Madam Speaker, as long as we are looking at the facts, let me also remind the House that section 139 of the Criminal Code states that every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding is guilty of a crime. The law is clear, and it is unacceptable that the Clerk of the Privy Council tried to get the former attorney general to intervene in the judicial process. When will they realize that their actions are an obstruction of justice and a crime?
Madam Speaker, he said, No pressure, we'll fire you if you don't do what we say, but no pressure. The decision is entirely yours.Here is the chronology we now know. The former attorney general told the Prime Minister on September 17 that she would not push for a special deal for SNC-Lavalin, yet he sent his top adviser on December 5 and his top bureaucrat on December 19 to change her mind. When she did not, she was moved out of the position. Why did the government and the Prime Minister attempt to change the course of justice in this case?
Madam Speaker, the Criminal Code is clear that everyone who attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. The public prosecutor informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be proceeding with a criminal trial. The former attorney general said she would not interfere. We know that the PMO, the Clerk of the Privy Council and even the Prime Minister attempted, on several occasions, to get the former attorney general to interfere in the trial. Is that not obstruction of justice?
Madam Speaker, with the high cost of student loans, day care and rent, many young Canadians are finding it extremely difficult to achieve the dream of home ownership.Through a series of rule changes by the former Conservative government, the maximum term for insured mortgages went from 40 years to 25 years. Instead of making it easier for first-time homebuyers, Liberals further tightened mortgage rules. This is the same old story: While they make life easier for corporate friends, Liberals are shutting out young families from owning their own homes. Will the Liberal government put young families first and commit to introducing a 30-year term on insured mortgages?
Madam Speaker, there were 50 meetings between executives of a company at the highest levels of the Liberal government, and an engineering company meeting on what? Justice issues. That is time the Prime Minister could have spent finding real solutions to our housing crisis, fighting to make medication more inexpensive for Canadians and helping the people in the country who are only $200 away from not being able to pay their bills.When the Liberal government has rich friends knocking at the door, boy does it find time to meet them. However, when Canadians need help, they are told to wait. Why will Liberals not just come clean and tell us who they are really working for?
Madam Speaker, the uncertainty surrounding the government's intentions for the SNC-Lavalin file is having real consequences. Today, the company reported a $1.6-billion loss in the last quarter. At this rate, a fire sale or layoffs cannot be far behind.The government urgently needs to take action.A remediation agreement would punish the culprits, instead of collectively penalizing workers who have done absolutely nothing wrong.When is the government going to start negotiations? Is it waiting until thousands of people lose their jobs?
Madam Speaker, the illegal and unjustified U.S. tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum must be lifted. U.S. lawmakers have asked Ambassador Lighthizer to lift those tariffs. This weekend, the minister raised the issue with members of the U.S. Congress, including Nancy Pelosi, who confirmed that our counter-measures are having an impact. Our plan is working. Recently, Republican Kevin Brady indicated that the tariffs would have to be lifted before Congress considers the new NAFTA.
Madam Speaker, a recent article in The Globe and Mail made it clear that Canadian economists are virtually unanimous in the view that a price on pollution reduces greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest possible cost to the economy. They also went on to identify another fact: Under the federal policy that begins this spring, roughly 80 per cent of households will receive rebates that actually exceed the amount they will pay. Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment please clarify why Conservative politicians, not just these Conservative politicians but others as well, are misrepresenting academic research and vastly overstating the costs for average Canadians?
Madam Speaker, that is not evidence. That is the member's speculation. That is the member drawing his own conclusions and this is exactly why Canadians are finding it challenging. Canadians should have confidence in their institutions and that is why we will not undermine the work of committees. We will not undermine the work of officers of Parliament. We respect the independent judicial system because Canadians should have and can have confidence in the independent bodies. Canadians should know that members of Parliament are asking tough questions to witnesses. Witnesses are appearing and answering those questions.
Madam Speaker, Canada is concerned by the escalation of tensions in Egypt. We have been alarmed by the reaction of security forces during recent peaceful demonstrations and the recent arrests of activists and politicians. We call on all parties in Egypt to exercise restraint, denounce hateful speech and engage in peaceful dialogue.
Madam Speaker, after 10 years of inaction under Stephen Harper, 99% of our oil exports were still sold to the United States. The Conservatives' approach failed, and they are doubling down on that approach with their disregard for the courts, with no plan to protect the environment and coastal communities and with no plan to meaningfully engage in a two-way dialogue with indigenous peoples. They disregard the courts. We are following the path that has been provided by the Federal Court of Appeal and we are going to do so in the right way.
Madam Speaker, as we have said many times and as we have told Mayor Labeaume, we will contribute to the Quebec City tramway. We have offered Quebec over $1 billion for the project. We are still waiting for an answer from the government. In the meantime, we will keep supporting priorities on behalf of Quebeckers.
Madam Speaker, I am simply drawing facts from that very committee. We know the Prime Minister found out from his Attorney General that she would not give SNC-Lavalin a special deal. That set in place the course of justice, yet the Prime Minister then sent his top adviser to meet with her at the Chateau Laurier lounge and then his top bureaucrat to call her over the phone to try to change that course of justice. When she refused, he removed her from her position.Why did the Prime Minister attempt to defeat the course of justice in this case?
Madam Speaker, we are following the clear path provided by the Federal Court of Appeal in order to move in the right way, through meaningful consultations. The report was clear that we need to do a better job in consulting indigenous peoples, something that the Conservatives ignored for 10 years, and we need to account for the impact on marine shipping. That is the path that we are taking. We are taking the time to get this right and we are not cutting corners like the Conservatives did.
Madam Speaker, it is important that Canadians have confidence in their institutions. That is exactly why members from both sides who sit on the justice committee worked together to call witnesses. They came to committee, the members were able to ask them questions and they answered them. We have confidence in the members' work on the justice committee. I think they must do their work.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Pontiac for his advocacy on the climate and environment files over these past few years.The fact is that climate change is real, and we have an opportunity and an obligation to do something about it. The opposition has been spending a lot of time misleading Canadians about our climate plan, because, quite frankly, it does not have one of its own to talk about. We made a commitment to Canadians that we were going to take climate change seriously and do it in a way that makes life more affordable. We have established a plan that is going to put more money in the pockets of eight out of 10 families in jurisdictions where this plan applies. We are working with Canadians on the best ways to cut pollution, and we are going to take no lessons from the opposition, which has no plan on how to contribute to the fight against climate change.
Madam Speaker, when it comes to the Prime Minister's former principal secretary, he has issued a public letter. He has made that letter available for all Canadians to read and hear his reasons.When it comes to the justice committee, the justice committee has asked for witnesses to appear. Members on both sides of the aisle have worked together to have those witnesses appear. We know that witnesses are appearing. Members are asking questions. We think the committee should do its important work. Members opposite choose to speculate. We are a fact-based government. We will let the facts speak for themselves.
Madam Speaker, the misconduct of a Canadian company abroad has recently created some political controversy. More than a year ago, the government announced a Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise to investigate such conduct. Unfortunately, no ombudsperson has been appointed. When asked yesterday, the minister said that the appointment will be announced soon.Can the government commit to appoint an ombudsperson before the House rises this spring?
Madam Speaker, February 12 was International Day Against the Use of Child Soldiers. It is a day to remember that we must protect children from the risk of participating in the horrors of armed conflict.Can the Minister of National Defence update the House on the progress our government is making on Roméo Dallaire's initiative to prevent the use of child soldiers and our re-engagement with the United Nations?
Madam Speaker, today SNC-Lavalin reported billions in losses and said this was attributable to the dispute with Saudi Arabia. The company and senior Liberal officials ramped up their lobbying efforts last year, at the same time that the government was having its Twitter dispute with Saudi Arabia.Did the Liberals bow to corporate pressure because their foreign policy failures were leading to billions in losses?
Madam Speaker, the very difficult circumstances many Canadians, and certainly many indigenous Canadians, find themselves in when it comes to finding an affordable place to call home is something of great concern to this government and has been since the very start of our mandate. That is why in budget 2016, for the first time in 17 years, we increased the budget to fight homelessness in Canada and doubled it.That is not the end of the story. Just a few months ago, we announced the first ever national housing strategy, which is going to change the way in which indigenous Canadians across all of Canada will be able to access a safe and affordable place to call home.
Madam Speaker, developing public transportation in Quebec is a pain in the behind, and it is the federal government's fault.Quebec City cannot build its tramway because Ottawa decided on its own which infrastructure projects it would fund. There is no way to get money from other programs, since Ottawa still imposes conditions. It has money, it collects half of our taxes, but the second criterion in paragraph 4 has not been met.Why does the government not transfer the infrastructure money to Quebec in a lump sum?
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. This has been my priority since I became Minister of Sport.Last June, we announced strong measures to end abuse, discrimination and harassment in sport. Last week, sport ministers from across the country signed a declaration that will create a systemic culture shift in sport, and yesterday I announced the development of a universal code of conduct that our sport partners, such as CAAWS, said that they were thrilled to see.We must put an end to abuse.
Madam Speaker, if the Liberal government truly cared about protecting workers and jobs, why was it not there for Sears, Rona and Davie shipyard workers? Where was the government?The Liberals' track record speaks for itself. They help rich corporate executives, and the workers have to fend for themselves. The Liberal government has two sets of rules: one set for the wealthy and one set for everyone else.Why do the Liberals not stand up for our workers who have been left behind, instead of helping their buddies skirt the law?
Madam Speaker, we know that the company is doing business right around the world and, in conducting that business, employing many thousands of Canadians. It is very important economic development.We also know that we have embarked on a very aggressive trade diversification strategy. We meet with companies around the world to take the best advantage of that. We believe that Canada is better positioned now to be a leader in international trade than it ever has been before.
Madam Speaker, this week, nine men were executed in Egypt after a grossly unfair trial.These executions reflect the serious worsening of the human rights situation in Egypt, where the government is cracking down on human rights activists, journalists, members of the LGBTQ community and basically anyone who dares to publicly criticize Egypt's military dictatorship.When will the minister break her silence and exert pressure on Egyptian authorities to uphold human rights and the rule of law?
Madam Speaker, our country is strongly committed to collaborating with the Philippines government to resolve this issue and is aware of the court decision ordering the importer to ship the material back to Canada. Currently, a joint technical working group is being established, consisting of officials from both countries, to examine the full spectrum of issues related to the removal of the waste. In 2016, we actually amended our own regulations on hazardous waste shipments to prevent this kind of event from happening again. We are committed to working collaboratively to ensure that the material is processed in a more environmentally sustainable way.
Madam Speaker, as I said in the other official language but I will repeat once again, this matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee. The member should listen closely, because I have been giving the same answer since the beginning of question period.We know that the justice committee has called in witnesses. We know that members on both sides are asking questions, and the witnesses are answering them.The commissioner and the committee must do their work, and we encourage them to do so.
Madam Speaker, I hope Canadians are noticing that the Conservatives continue asking the exact same question, and when I am providing the answer, they start yelling so they can never hear the answer, and then they continue getting up and asking the same question, so I will answer it again, and maybe they will listen.Just last week, the director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors, in every case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration. Yesterday the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the PMO and the DPP.
Madam Speaker, we have said that we on this side of the aisle, the Liberal Party, support the work of the committee. We support the independence of committees. That is exactly why as a government, we have increased the resources of committees because they need to do that important work. The matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee. When it comes to officers of Parliament, we respect their independence and we believe they should do the important work. We respect the independence of the judicial system. A clear difference between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party is that we will not undermine our institutions, like those members choose to continue doing.
Madam Speaker, we on this side will always defend and uphold the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law. We know that this matter is being looked at by both the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee.Once again, we know that this matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee. We have confidence in our institutions. We have confidence in officers of Parliament. We have confidence in the independence of the judicial system. We believe that they should be able to do their work.
Madam Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring our veterans receive the benefits and support that they deserve. The needs of Canada's veterans have changed significantly over the past 100 years since the Pension Act was introduced, and our support needs to change with it. Thanks to our government's $10-billion investments, all veterans today, including the most vulnerable, are better off than they were under the Harper Conservatives.
Madam Speaker, once again, I encourage all members and all Canadians to really listen to what the witnesses who appeared before the committee said, but we need to look at the facts. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that, in this and every other case, prosecutors exercise their discretion independently. The deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the PMO and the DPP.
Madam Speaker, for many Canadians, investing in a home is the biggest investment of their lives.We know how important it is to their financial well-being for that investment to be protected. That is why we took measures to limit the risks in the housing market and make it easier to access long-term financing.Since taking office, we have been focused on giving more tools to middle-class families and young people and more money to those who need it most to help them achieve financial balance, stability, and prosperity.
Madam Speaker, on September 4, 2018, the office of the director of public prosecutions informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be pursuing criminal charges. On September 17, 2018, the former attorney general told the Prime Minister that she would not intervene to influence the decision of the director of public prosecutions. That should have been the end of it, but it was not.We now know that the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister tried to interfere on several occasions to get the former attorney general to intervene in the judicial process. How can it be argued that their actions do not constitute obstruction of justice and are not a crime?
Madam Speaker, our government recognizes the unacceptable gaps in housing on reserve and in indigenous communities. After decades of neglect and underfunding by the Conservative government, our government is taking action. For first nations housing on reserve alone, we have committed more than $1 billion, with more than 15,000 housing units being built and renovated. We have also rolled out distinctions-based housing for indigenous communities: $600 million for first nations, $500 million for Métis and $400 million for Inuit.
Madam Speaker, the member was here under 10 years of Stephen Harper when they undermined the work of committees. What is clear is that the Conservatives have chosen a new leader, but their approach to democracy remains exactly the same, and Canadians are noticing. We on this side have increased resources to committees, because we respect our institutions. Canadians should have confidence in their institutions, and that is what we will continue to do. When it comes to officers of Parliament, this side will always respect their work. When it comes to the independent judicial system, we will encourage it to do its work. When it comes to the work of committees, like the justice committee, they are doing their work. Let us let them do their work.
Madam Speaker, I have stated for the record, and I will do it again, that the Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that at every opportunity, verbally and in writing, in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was a decision for the minister of justice to take.We take seriously the responsibility of standing up for jobs and growing the economy. We will always defend and uphold the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law.This matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee. We will work with them. We think they should get to do their work independently of the chamber.
Madam Speaker, now we are being asked the same question in French. We are proud to be a bilingual country.Let us look at the facts. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently. The deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the Prime Minister's Office and the DPP. The Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that, at every opportunity, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was a decision for the Minister of Justice to take.
Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Clerk of the Privy Council admitted that at a September 17 meeting the former attorney general told the Prime Minister that she had decided not to overturn the prosecutor's decision and give SNC-Lavalin a deal to avoid trial. That was the course of justice. However, the Prime Minister sent his top bureaucrat and then separately his top adviser to change that decision and alter the course of justice. When she refused, she was fired. Why?
Madam Speaker, the justice committee has been working together with members on both sides to have witnesses appear. Members on both sides are asking questions. Witnesses are answering those questions.The member chooses to continue speculating and drawing his own conclusions. On this side, we have confidence in the work of members of the committee. We are the government that increased resources for committees so that they could do this important work. It is fascinating to me that the member seems to have no regard for the work of the committee, because it is doing that work. He was there asking for witnesses to appear and now that they are, he seems to be undermining them.
Madam Speaker, as I said, the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are doing their job. They have called in witnesses, and the witnesses arrived yesterday. I believe the committee meetings will continue next week.Let us look at the facts. The director of the Public Prosecution Service has confirmed that, in each and every case, prosecutors exercise their discretion independently. The deputy minister of justice confirmed that there is no direct communication in any
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to remind my hon. Bloc Québécois colleague that the agreement with Quebec on public transportation provides for $5.2 billion to be transferred to Quebec. This is 26.2% of the total amount, even though the population of Quebec represents 23.23%. This is the largest transfer per capita. Quebec has significant needs in terms of public transportation. We are committed to Quebec, when it comes to federal funding.
Madam Speaker, he is one of the newer members on that side, and already he is speculating, just like the rest of them. The member should be encouraged to let the justice committee do its important work. The justice committee has members from both sides on it. They are working together to bring witnesses to that committee. Witnesses are appearing. Members are asking tough questions, and they are getting answers. We on this side have confidence in the work committees do in this place, and we will continue to do that, but we should let the record show that just last week, the director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan interference.
Madam Speaker, I will quote once again. Just last last week, the director of the public prosecution service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration. Yesterday, when asked at justice committee if it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials to discuss the matter with the Attorney General, the Attorney General confirmed those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.I encourage members opposite to stop speculating. The justice committee is doing its work. It is bringing forward witnesses. It is working hard. Let us let it do its work.
Madam Speaker, the government believes that Canadians who have lived quiet, dedicated lives deserve peace of mind in retirement. I would like to point out that our government has created more than 800,000 jobs through the platform it has implemented over the past three years. Canada's unemployment rate is among the lowest in decades, and our government continues to help create good jobs for Canadians, for families, so that they can feel secure and safe.
Madam Speaker, as the hon. member full well knows, matters of solicitor-client privilege are exceptionally complex, particularly in this sort of case. We are working to try to find a way such that the former attorney general can in fact speak. We are doing our level best to do that.
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.As she knows, yesterday, I reiterated in the House and elsewhere that this is a delicate issue. As Attorney General of Canada, I cannot comment on a subject that could have an impact on a matter that is before the courts, as this one is.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member of Parliament for LavalLes Îles for his hard work. In 2017, we launched the Vancouver principles on peacekeeping and the prevention of the recruitment and the use of child soldiers, developed alongside the Roméo Dallaire child soldiers initiative.Earlier this month, I attended a workshop with more than 120 member states and international partners that will provide practical advice on how to train forces on peacekeeping operations and how to best support them when they come home.The Vancouver principles, which have the support of 71 states, are a clear example of how our government is re-engaging with the United Nations and promoting peace and security around the world.
Madam Speaker, we know that the protection of human rights abroad and Canada's commitment within its corporate community to behave with the absolute best of ethical standards are values that all members of the House share. We also know that we are going to appoint the first-ever ombudsperson for corporate social responsibility, and as I said yesterday, that appointment will be announced soon.
Madam Speaker, let us look at the record. Just last week, the director of public prosecution service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration. Yesterday, the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the PMO and the DPP. The Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that at every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that the decision was for the minister of justice to take.
Madam Speaker, yesterday, also at justice committee the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed, At every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was the decision for the Minister of Justice to take.
Madam Speaker, just last week, the director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors, in every case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.Yesterday the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication, in any specific case, between the PMO and the DPP. The Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that At every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was the decision for the Minister of Justice to take.
Madam Speaker, our government has been steadfast in its commitment to do the hard work necessary to move forward in the right way on TMX by following the guidance from the Federal Court of Appeal. Today the National Energy Board will release its reconsideration report, and that marks an important milestone. We continue to do the work in consulting with first nations, ensuring that where accommodations are possible and reasonable, we will do so. At this moment, we have around eight teams on the ground, meeting with the communities. As well, we have had over 80 meetings with the communities as we move forward with this project in the right way.
Most negative speeches
Madam Speaker, well, let us look at the record. Section 139(2) of the Criminal Code says, Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. The Clerk of the Privy Council admitted that he, the Prime Minister's staff and the Prime Minister himself all attempted to influence the outcome of the SNC trial. That is a criminal offence. When will the Liberals admit that?
Madam Speaker, section 139(2) of the Criminal Code states, Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence.The Clerk of the Privy Council admitted that he, the Prime Minister's staff and the Prime Minister himself all attempted to influence the outcome of the SNC-Lavalin trial. That is a criminal offence. When will the Liberals admit that?
Madam Speaker, I know the Liberals are very uncomfortable with this very inconvenient truth. Let me repeat that subsection 139(2) of the Criminal Code says that everyone who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence.We know that the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Prime Minister and Gerry Butts wilfully attempted to have the former Attorney General interfere in the trial. That is a criminal offence. Will the justice minister admit that this constitutes a crime?
Madam Speaker, section 139(2) of the Criminal Code says everyone who wilfully attempts in any manner....to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. The Clerk of the Privy Council has confessed that he, the Prime Minister's staff, and the Prime Minister himself have all attempted to influence the course of the SNC-Lavalin trial.If the Liberals believe they have done nothing wrong, why was the former attorney general fired, and why did Gerry Butts resign?
Madam Speaker, there are indeed two sets of rules: one that increased taxes for the richest 1% in 2016, which the NDP opposed, and another that lowered taxes for the middle class. There is also the rule about not sending cheques to millionaire parents who do not need the money and enhancing the Canada child benefit for nine in 10 families, which was implemented in July 2016. Unfortunately, the NDP also did not support this rule to help middle-class families.
Madam Speaker, on September 4, 2018, SNC-Lavalin was informed that the trial would proceed. On September 17, 2018, the former attorney general decided not to interfere in this matter, but we know that government actors attempted to intervene. Section 139 of the Criminal Code states that every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence.When will the Liberals realize that this is obstruction of justice?
Madam Speaker, subsection 139(2) of the Criminal Code says, Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. We now know that the Prime Minister arranged for the Clerk of the Privy Council and his principal secretary to get the former attorney general to interfere in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. This was a sustained effort to avoid a trial. How are the actions of the Prime Minister not criminal?
Madam Speaker, for eight months, Trump has been holding businesses hostage by imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum exports. Meanwhile, Russia asked for lower tariffs and got them. We are wondering what the Liberals are doing on this file.In my riding, SNOC, Tuba and Norbec are being hard hit by the Liberals' NAFTA 2.0.It is having an impact on local businesses, workers and their families.What do the Liberals have to say to those people?
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.As she knows, yesterday, I reiterated in the House and elsewhere that this is a delicate issue. As Attorney General of Canada, I cannot comment on a subject that could have an impact on a matter that is before the courts, as this one is.
Madam Speaker, on September 4, the office of the public prosecutor informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be moving forward with the criminal trial. On September 17, the former attorney general told the Prime Minister that she would not interfere in the criminal trial. That should have been the end. However, after that meeting, the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's principal secretary tried to get the former attorney general to interfere in the trial.When will the Prime Minister realize that this obstruction of justice is a criminal offence?
Madam Speaker, this week, nine men were executed in Egypt after a grossly unfair trial.These executions reflect the serious worsening of the human rights situation in Egypt, where the government is cracking down on human rights activists, journalists, members of the LGBTQ community and basically anyone who dares to publicly criticize Egypt's military dictatorship.When will the minister break her silence and exert pressure on Egyptian authorities to uphold human rights and the rule of law?
Madam Speaker, every single week an energy company is laying off hundreds of workers or leaving the country altogether, and every week we get inaction and platitudes by the Prime Minister. This week, Steelhead LNG shelved its pipeline in B.C. and Devon Energy announced it is selling its Canadian assets and exiting the country. Why, when it comes to 120,000 unemployed energy workers or a convoy of Canadians who come to Ottawa to fight for their jobs, will this Prime Minister not lift a finger? Why will he not fight for everyone?
Madam Speaker, as long as we are looking at the facts, let me also remind the House that section 139 of the Criminal Code states that every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding is guilty of a crime. The law is clear, and it is unacceptable that the Clerk of the Privy Council tried to get the former attorney general to intervene in the judicial process. When will they realize that their actions are an obstruction of justice and a crime?
Madam Speaker, according to the Criminal Code, everyone who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding is guilty of a crime. We now know that the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's top adviser attempted to force the former attorney general to interfere in the criminal trial of SNC-Lavalin after she told the Prime Minister she would not. The Prime Minister is complicit in these actions. When will the Liberals admit their crime?
Madam Speaker, the Criminal Code states that any attempt to obstruct a judicial proceeding is a crime.On September 4, SNC-Lavalin learned that its criminal trial would go forward. On September 17, the former AG told the PM that she would not interfere in that trial. Now we have learned that three months later, the PM's principal secretary and the Clerk of the Privy Council continued to have discussions with her about interfering.Is it ignorance or arrogance that keeps the Liberals from realizing just how much this looks like obstruction of justice?
Madam Speaker, the Criminal Code is clear that everyone who attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. The public prosecutor informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be proceeding with a criminal trial. The former attorney general said she would not interfere. We know that the PMO, the Clerk of the Privy Council and even the Prime Minister attempted, on several occasions, to get the former attorney general to interfere in the trial. Is that not obstruction of justice?
Madam Speaker, on September 4, the director of public prosecution refused to offer a deferred prosecution agreement to SNC-Lavalin. On September 17, the attorney general said that she would not reverse that decision. During the next several months, a concerted effort was made by the Prime Minister and his senior officials to make her change her mind. The Criminal Code is clear: Every one who wilfully attempts, in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. With everything we now know, how is this not obstruction of justice by the Prime Minister?
Madam Speaker, the Liberal saga continues.Here are the facts. On September 4, the office of the director of public prosecutions informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be moving forward with the case. On September 17, the former attorney general told the Prime Minister she would not interfere in the criminal trial. Yesterday, the Clerk of the Privy Council admitted that the Prime Minister tried to interfere in the process several times. That is a crime.When will the Liberals admit it?
Madam Speaker, we have listened carefully to the Liberals' comments from the beginning of this saga.We now know, and these are clear facts, that the Prime Minister's Office, the Clerk of the Privy Council and even the Prime Minister tried on several occasions to get the former attorney general to intervene in the case against SNC-Lavalin.Section 139 of the Criminal Code clearly sets out the following as a criminal offence: 139 (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding... When will the Prime Minister finally admit that he wilfully tried to obstruct the course of justice?
Madam Speaker, as I said in the other official language but I will repeat once again, this matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee. The member should listen closely, because I have been giving the same answer since the beginning of question period.We know that the justice committee has called in witnesses. We know that members on both sides are asking questions, and the witnesses are answering them.The commissioner and the committee must do their work, and we encourage them to do so.
Madam Speaker, on September 4, 2018, the office of the director of public prosecutions informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be pursuing criminal charges. On September 17, 2018, the former attorney general told the Prime Minister that she would not intervene to influence the decision of the director of public prosecutions. That should have been the end of it, but it was not.We now know that the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister tried to interfere on several occasions to get the former attorney general to intervene in the judicial process. How can it be argued that their actions do not constitute obstruction of justice and are not a crime?
Madam Speaker, today SNC-Lavalin reported billions in losses and said this was attributable to the dispute with Saudi Arabia. The company and senior Liberal officials ramped up their lobbying efforts last year, at the same time that the government was having its Twitter dispute with Saudi Arabia.Did the Liberals bow to corporate pressure because their foreign policy failures were leading to billions in losses?
Madam Speaker, Canadians want to know. The Prime Minister has problems with his exes. His ex-attorney general wants to tell her truth. His ex-senior adviser does not want to talk. Pressure exerted by the PMO on the ex-attorney general violates section 139 of the Criminal Code.When will the Liberals realize that this is obstruction of justice? This is a crime. This is a scandal.
Madam Speaker, a recent article in The Globe and Mail made it clear that Canadian economists are virtually unanimous in the view that a price on pollution reduces greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest possible cost to the economy. They also went on to identify another fact: Under the federal policy that begins this spring, roughly 80 per cent of households will receive rebates that actually exceed the amount they will pay. Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment please clarify why Conservative politicians, not just these Conservative politicians but others as well, are misrepresenting academic research and vastly overstating the costs for average Canadians?
Madam Speaker, developing public transportation in Quebec is a pain in the behind, and it is the federal government's fault.Quebec City cannot build its tramway because Ottawa decided on its own which infrastructure projects it would fund. There is no way to get money from other programs, since Ottawa still imposes conditions. It has money, it collects half of our taxes, but the second criterion in paragraph 4 has not been met.Why does the government not transfer the infrastructure money to Quebec in a lump sum?
Once again, the Conservatives do not listen. They continue speaking when I have the floor.
Madam Speaker, February 12 was International Day Against the Use of Child Soldiers. It is a day to remember that we must protect children from the risk of participating in the horrors of armed conflict.Can the Minister of National Defence update the House on the progress our government is making on Roméo Dallaire's initiative to prevent the use of child soldiers and our re-engagement with the United Nations?
Madam Speaker, the illegal and unjustified U.S. tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum must be lifted. U.S. lawmakers have asked Ambassador Lighthizer to lift those tariffs. This weekend, the minister raised the issue with members of the U.S. Congress, including Nancy Pelosi, who confirmed that our counter-measures are having an impact. Our plan is working. Recently, Republican Kevin Brady indicated that the tariffs would have to be lifted before Congress considers the new NAFTA.
Madam Speaker, when the former attorney general was fired, she emphasized the need for an independent judicial system. Why?When the Prime Minister's chief adviser Gerry Butts resigned, he highlighted the former attorney general. Why?When the former attorney general stood in the House this week, she asked to be allowed to speak her truth. Why?Why will the Prime Minister not let her speak her truth and let Canadians get to the bottom of all this?
Madam Speaker, after 10 years of inaction under Stephen Harper, 99% of our oil exports were still sold to the United States. The Conservatives' approach failed, and they are doubling down on that approach with their disregard for the courts, with no plan to protect the environment and coastal communities and with no plan to meaningfully engage in a two-way dialogue with indigenous peoples. They disregard the courts. We are following the path that has been provided by the Federal Court of Appeal and we are going to do so in the right way.
Madam Speaker, I just finished a tour of the Trans Mountain pipeline, and I heard disappointment from so many people. Construction camps were abandoned. We have massive piles of pipe just waiting to be installed. First nations entrepreneurs are losing money, and planned projects have been put on hold because of the Prime Minister's mistakes. After we paid $4.6 billion, one billion dollars over the sticker price, my constituents need reassurance that there will be shovels in the ground before October 2019. Running out the clock is not an option.
Madam Speaker, I have stated for the record, and I will do it again, that the Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that at every opportunity, verbally and in writing, in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was a decision for the minister of justice to take.We take seriously the responsibility of standing up for jobs and growing the economy. We will always defend and uphold the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law.This matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee. We will work with them. We think they should get to do their work independently of the chamber.
Madam Speaker, last weekend hundreds of workers gathered on the Prairies in support of new construction for new pipelines. They are fed up with Liberal excuses. They gathered because they do not want to hear any more Liberal excuses, they do not want the procrastination to continue, and they cannot afford the Prime Minister's mistakes.If the Liberals will not listen to us about killing their anti-pipeline bill, Bill C-69, will they at least listen to the tens of thousands of energy workers who want this bill killed and stopped immediately?
Madam Speaker, again, yesterday at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the clerk also confirmed that the Prime Minister clearly said at every opportunity that the decision was the justice minister's to make.It has to be said that the Conservatives keep speaking out of both sides of their mouths. In French they claim they have no intention of jeopardizing jobs at SNC-Lavalin, as that hon. member said, but in English, the hon. member for Carleton said he wanted to shut down this company and was not afraid to say so.Their constant doublespeak has to stop.
Madam Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed what veterans knew and the Prime Minister denied. The pension for life scheme falls so short of what veterans were promised that it is reprehensible to Canadians. The report sent a shudder throughout the veterans community by revealing our most severely and permanently injured will receive, on average, $300,000 less under the Liberal pension scam. Why must Canada's most vulnerable injured soldiers and their families pay for the Prime Minister's mistakes?
Madam Speaker, if the Liberal government truly cared about protecting workers and jobs, why was it not there for Sears, Rona and Davie shipyard workers? Where was the government?The Liberals' track record speaks for itself. They help rich corporate executives, and the workers have to fend for themselves. The Liberal government has two sets of rules: one set for the wealthy and one set for everyone else.Why do the Liberals not stand up for our workers who have been left behind, instead of helping their buddies skirt the law?
Madam Speaker, the member was here under 10 years of Stephen Harper when they undermined the work of committees. What is clear is that the Conservatives have chosen a new leader, but their approach to democracy remains exactly the same, and Canadians are noticing. We on this side have increased resources to committees, because we respect our institutions. Canadians should have confidence in their institutions, and that is what we will continue to do. When it comes to officers of Parliament, this side will always respect their work. When it comes to the independent judicial system, we will encourage it to do its work. When it comes to the work of committees, like the justice committee, they are doing their work. Let us let them do their work.
Madam Speaker, he is one of the newer members on that side, and already he is speculating, just like the rest of them. The member should be encouraged to let the justice committee do its important work. The justice committee has members from both sides on it. They are working together to bring witnesses to that committee. Witnesses are appearing. Members are asking tough questions, and they are getting answers. We on this side have confidence in the work committees do in this place, and we will continue to do that, but we should let the record show that just last week, the director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan interference.
Madam Speaker, public transit is a perfect example of how little the federal government understands about Quebec's actual needs. From Saguenay to Longueuil to Trois-Rivières, every one of our cities has infrastructure needs, but federal investment is proportional to ridership on existing public transit networks. The problem is that if the service is not available, there are no riders. There has to be a bus for people to get on.Why won't the federal government just transfer the infrastructure money to Quebec? Afterwards, we can figure things out for ourselves.
Madam Speaker, once again, I encourage all members and all Canadians to really listen to what the witnesses who appeared before the committee said, but we need to look at the facts. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that, in this and every other case, prosecutors exercise their discretion independently. The deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the PMO and the DPP.
Madam Speaker, as I said, the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are doing their job. They have called in witnesses, and the witnesses arrived yesterday. I believe the committee meetings will continue next week.Let us look at the facts. The director of the Public Prosecution Service has confirmed that, in each and every case, prosecutors exercise their discretion independently. The deputy minister of justice confirmed that there is no direct communication in any
Madam Speaker, with the high cost of student loans, day care and rent, many young Canadians are finding it extremely difficult to achieve the dream of home ownership.Through a series of rule changes by the former Conservative government, the maximum term for insured mortgages went from 40 years to 25 years. Instead of making it easier for first-time homebuyers, Liberals further tightened mortgage rules. This is the same old story: While they make life easier for corporate friends, Liberals are shutting out young families from owning their own homes. Will the Liberal government put young families first and commit to introducing a 30-year term on insured mortgages?
Madam Speaker, the Liberals do not seem to understand that reconciliation means housing is a human right. This week they announced funding that represented less than 2% of their national housing strategy to tackle the homelessness crisis of indigenous people in urban centres.Experts have been clear: We need way more than that to address this urgent housing crisis and to solve the fundamental causes of homelessness in urban areas. One in 15 indigenous peoples living in cities is homeless.When will the Liberal government step up with a real plan to address this crisis?
Madam Speaker, I will quote once again. Just last last week, the director of the public prosecution service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration. Yesterday, when asked at justice committee if it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials to discuss the matter with the Attorney General, the Attorney General confirmed those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.I encourage members opposite to stop speculating. The justice committee is doing its work. It is bringing forward witnesses. It is working hard. Let us let it do its work.
Madam Speaker, I hope Canadians are noticing that the Conservatives continue asking the exact same question, and when I am providing the answer, they start yelling so they can never hear the answer, and then they continue getting up and asking the same question, so I will answer it again, and maybe they will listen.Just last week, the director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors, in every case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration. Yesterday the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the PMO and the DPP.
Madam Speaker, for 20 years, many countries have tried to amend an international treaty to stop developed countries from shipping garbage to developing nations, but Canada has refused to agree. The Liberal government talks about increasing recycling, but it is clear that it is not taking responsibility for where our garbage ends up. One hundred and three containers of Canadian trash have been rotting in the Philippines for four years. These containers are full of, not recycling, but diapers, food waste and discarded electronics. When will the minister end this international embarrassment and prevent Canada from shipping its garbage to developing countries?
Madam Speaker, Canada is concerned by the escalation of tensions in Egypt. We have been alarmed by the reaction of security forces during recent peaceful demonstrations and the recent arrests of activists and politicians. We call on all parties in Egypt to exercise restraint, denounce hateful speech and engage in peaceful dialogue.
Madam Speaker, the uncertainty surrounding the government's intentions for the SNC-Lavalin file is having real consequences. Today, the company reported a $1.6-billion loss in the last quarter. At this rate, a fire sale or layoffs cannot be far behind.The government urgently needs to take action.A remediation agreement would punish the culprits, instead of collectively penalizing workers who have done absolutely nothing wrong.When is the government going to start negotiations? Is it waiting until thousands of people lose their jobs?
Madam Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring our veterans receive the benefits and support that they deserve. The needs of Canada's veterans have changed significantly over the past 100 years since the Pension Act was introduced, and our support needs to change with it. Thanks to our government's $10-billion investments, all veterans today, including the most vulnerable, are better off than they were under the Harper Conservatives.
Madam Speaker, let us look at the record. Just last week, the director of public prosecution service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration. Yesterday, the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the PMO and the DPP. The Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that at every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that the decision was for the minister of justice to take.
Madam Speaker, just last week, the director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors, in every case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.Yesterday the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication, in any specific case, between the PMO and the DPP. The Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that At every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was the decision for the Minister of Justice to take.
Madam Speaker, I hope that all members of the House saw the report last week indicating that in the past 20 years, more than 600 people, in 30 different sports, have been abused. Now is the time that we need to stand up as a country, united in ending abuse, discrimination and harassment in sport. Could the Minister of Science and Sport update the House on what our government is doing to stop this problem that affects so many Canadians?
Madam Speaker, people in Pelican Narrows are suffering from a lack of affordable and accessible housing. The community has 266 new housing requests but only the funding to complete three, and that does not include the requests for home renovations.While the Liberals brag about their housing strategy, people in Pelican Narrows are still waiting for a place to call home. They cannot and should not wait any longer.Will the Liberals stop waiting and immediately invest in housing for the people of Pelican Narrows?
Madam Speaker, our government has been steadfast in its commitment to do the hard work necessary to move forward in the right way on TMX by following the guidance from the Federal Court of Appeal. Today the National Energy Board will release its reconsideration report, and that marks an important milestone. We continue to do the work in consulting with first nations, ensuring that where accommodations are possible and reasonable, we will do so. At this moment, we have around eight teams on the ground, meeting with the communities. As well, we have had over 80 meetings with the communities as we move forward with this project in the right way.
Madam Speaker, families, young people and seniors are struggling to pay their bills. They have to contend with the high cost of housing, health care and day care. They are wondering why the Prime Minister is not working hard to make life easier for them instead of bending backwards to give the rich a free ride. When rich executives ask for help, the Liberals jump to attention; when ordinary Canadians need help, they are told to wait.Why are there two sets of rules, one for the rich and another for the rest of us?
Madam Speaker, the misconduct of a Canadian company abroad has recently created some political controversy. More than a year ago, the government announced a Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise to investigate such conduct. Unfortunately, no ombudsperson has been appointed. When asked yesterday, the minister said that the appointment will be announced soon.Can the government commit to appoint an ombudsperson before the House rises this spring?
Madam Speaker, when it comes to the Prime Minister's former principal secretary, he has issued a public letter. He has made that letter available for all Canadians to read and hear his reasons.When it comes to the justice committee, the justice committee has asked for witnesses to appear. Members on both sides of the aisle have worked together to have those witnesses appear. We know that witnesses are appearing. Members are asking questions. We think the committee should do its important work. Members opposite choose to speculate. We are a fact-based government. We will let the facts speak for themselves.
Madam Speaker, that is not evidence. That is the member's speculation. That is the member drawing his own conclusions and this is exactly why Canadians are finding it challenging. Canadians should have confidence in their institutions and that is why we will not undermine the work of committees. We will not undermine the work of officers of Parliament. We respect the independent judicial system because Canadians should have and can have confidence in the independent bodies. Canadians should know that members of Parliament are asking tough questions to witnesses. Witnesses are appearing and answering those questions.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to remind my hon. Bloc Québécois colleague that the agreement with Quebec on public transportation provides for $5.2 billion to be transferred to Quebec. This is 26.2% of the total amount, even though the population of Quebec represents 23.23%. This is the largest transfer per capita. Quebec has significant needs in terms of public transportation. We are committed to Quebec, when it comes to federal funding.
Madam Speaker, as the hon. member full well knows, matters of solicitor-client privilege are exceptionally complex, particularly in this sort of case. We are working to try to find a way such that the former attorney general can in fact speak. We are doing our level best to do that.
Madam Speaker, now we are being asked the same question in French. We are proud to be a bilingual country.Let us look at the facts. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently. The deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the Prime Minister's Office and the DPP. The Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that, at every opportunity, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was a decision for the Minister of Justice to take.
Madam Speaker, we know that the protection of human rights abroad and Canada's commitment within its corporate community to behave with the absolute best of ethical standards are values that all members of the House share. We also know that we are going to appoint the first-ever ombudsperson for corporate social responsibility, and as I said yesterday, that appointment will be announced soon.
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. This has been my priority since I became Minister of Sport.Last June, we announced strong measures to end abuse, discrimination and harassment in sport. Last week, sport ministers from across the country signed a declaration that will create a systemic culture shift in sport, and yesterday I announced the development of a universal code of conduct that our sport partners, such as CAAWS, said that they were thrilled to see.We must put an end to abuse.
Madam Speaker, our country is strongly committed to collaborating with the Philippines government to resolve this issue and is aware of the court decision ordering the importer to ship the material back to Canada. Currently, a joint technical working group is being established, consisting of officials from both countries, to examine the full spectrum of issues related to the removal of the waste. In 2016, we actually amended our own regulations on hazardous waste shipments to prevent this kind of event from happening again. We are committed to working collaboratively to ensure that the material is processed in a more environmentally sustainable way.
Madam Speaker, he said, No pressure, we'll fire you if you don't do what we say, but no pressure. The decision is entirely yours.Here is the chronology we now know. The former attorney general told the Prime Minister on September 17 that she would not push for a special deal for SNC-Lavalin, yet he sent his top adviser on December 5 and his top bureaucrat on December 19 to change her mind. When she did not, she was moved out of the position. Why did the government and the Prime Minister attempt to change the course of justice in this case?
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member of Parliament for LavalLes Îles for his hard work. In 2017, we launched the Vancouver principles on peacekeeping and the prevention of the recruitment and the use of child soldiers, developed alongside the Roméo Dallaire child soldiers initiative.Earlier this month, I attended a workshop with more than 120 member states and international partners that will provide practical advice on how to train forces on peacekeeping operations and how to best support them when they come home.The Vancouver principles, which have the support of 71 states, are a clear example of how our government is re-engaging with the United Nations and promoting peace and security around the world.
Madam Speaker, yesterday, also at justice committee the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed, At every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was the decision for the Minister of Justice to take.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Pontiac for his advocacy on the climate and environment files over these past few years.The fact is that climate change is real, and we have an opportunity and an obligation to do something about it. The opposition has been spending a lot of time misleading Canadians about our climate plan, because, quite frankly, it does not have one of its own to talk about. We made a commitment to Canadians that we were going to take climate change seriously and do it in a way that makes life more affordable. We have established a plan that is going to put more money in the pockets of eight out of 10 families in jurisdictions where this plan applies. We are working with Canadians on the best ways to cut pollution, and we are going to take no lessons from the opposition, which has no plan on how to contribute to the fight against climate change.
Madam Speaker, Canadians can have confidence that the government will always fight for Canadians. Canadians can have confidence in their institutions.I find it fascinating that the member seems to forget that the company actually met with his leader, the leader of the NDP. No differently, the company met with the leader of the Conservatives.What I also find fascinating, as he provides his commentary, is that yesterday he was on a panel, with other members of the committee, and he was saying, Why don't you have confidence in the members of the justice committee? We do. Let them do their work.
Madam Speaker, there were 50 meetings between executives of a company at the highest levels of the Liberal government, and an engineering company meeting on what? Justice issues. That is time the Prime Minister could have spent finding real solutions to our housing crisis, fighting to make medication more inexpensive for Canadians and helping the people in the country who are only $200 away from not being able to pay their bills.When the Liberal government has rich friends knocking at the door, boy does it find time to meet them. However, when Canadians need help, they are told to wait. Why will Liberals not just come clean and tell us who they are really working for?
Madam Speaker, we are following the clear path provided by the Federal Court of Appeal in order to move in the right way, through meaningful consultations. The report was clear that we need to do a better job in consulting indigenous peoples, something that the Conservatives ignored for 10 years, and we need to account for the impact on marine shipping. That is the path that we are taking. We are taking the time to get this right and we are not cutting corners like the Conservatives did.
Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Clerk of the Privy Council admitted that at a September 17 meeting the former attorney general told the Prime Minister that she had decided not to overturn the prosecutor's decision and give SNC-Lavalin a deal to avoid trial. That was the course of justice. However, the Prime Minister sent his top bureaucrat and then separately his top adviser to change that decision and alter the course of justice. When she refused, she was fired. Why?
Madam Speaker, the very difficult circumstances many Canadians, and certainly many indigenous Canadians, find themselves in when it comes to finding an affordable place to call home is something of great concern to this government and has been since the very start of our mandate. That is why in budget 2016, for the first time in 17 years, we increased the budget to fight homelessness in Canada and doubled it.That is not the end of the story. Just a few months ago, we announced the first ever national housing strategy, which is going to change the way in which indigenous Canadians across all of Canada will be able to access a safe and affordable place to call home.
Madam Speaker, I am simply drawing facts from that very committee. We know the Prime Minister found out from his Attorney General that she would not give SNC-Lavalin a special deal. That set in place the course of justice, yet the Prime Minister then sent his top adviser to meet with her at the Chateau Laurier lounge and then his top bureaucrat to call her over the phone to try to change that course of justice. When she refused, he removed her from her position.Why did the Prime Minister attempt to defeat the course of justice in this case?
Madam Speaker, we have said that we on this side of the aisle, the Liberal Party, support the work of the committee. We support the independence of committees. That is exactly why as a government, we have increased the resources of committees because they need to do that important work. The matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee. When it comes to officers of Parliament, we respect their independence and we believe they should do the important work. We respect the independence of the judicial system. A clear difference between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party is that we will not undermine our institutions, like those members choose to continue doing.
Madam Speaker, the government believes that Canadians who have lived quiet, dedicated lives deserve peace of mind in retirement. I would like to point out that our government has created more than 800,000 jobs through the platform it has implemented over the past three years. Canada's unemployment rate is among the lowest in decades, and our government continues to help create good jobs for Canadians, for families, so that they can feel secure and safe.
Madam Speaker, for many Canadians, investing in a home is the biggest investment of their lives.We know how important it is to their financial well-being for that investment to be protected. That is why we took measures to limit the risks in the housing market and make it easier to access long-term financing.Since taking office, we have been focused on giving more tools to middle-class families and young people and more money to those who need it most to help them achieve financial balance, stability, and prosperity.
Madam Speaker, our government recognizes the unacceptable gaps in housing on reserve and in indigenous communities. After decades of neglect and underfunding by the Conservative government, our government is taking action. For first nations housing on reserve alone, we have committed more than $1 billion, with more than 15,000 housing units being built and renovated. We have also rolled out distinctions-based housing for indigenous communities: $600 million for first nations, $500 million for Métis and $400 million for Inuit.
Madam Speaker, as we have said many times and as we have told Mayor Labeaume, we will contribute to the Quebec City tramway. We have offered Quebec over $1 billion for the project. We are still waiting for an answer from the government. In the meantime, we will keep supporting priorities on behalf of Quebeckers.
Madam Speaker, it is important that Canadians have confidence in their institutions. That is exactly why members from both sides who sit on the justice committee worked together to call witnesses. They came to committee, the members were able to ask them questions and they answered them. We have confidence in the members' work on the justice committee. I think they must do their work.
Madam Speaker, we know that the company is doing business right around the world and, in conducting that business, employing many thousands of Canadians. It is very important economic development.We also know that we have embarked on a very aggressive trade diversification strategy. We meet with companies around the world to take the best advantage of that. We believe that Canada is better positioned now to be a leader in international trade than it ever has been before.
Madam Speaker, we on this side will always defend and uphold the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law. We know that this matter is being looked at by both the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee.Once again, we know that this matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee. We have confidence in our institutions. We have confidence in officers of Parliament. We have confidence in the independence of the judicial system. We believe that they should be able to do their work.
Madam Speaker, the justice committee has been working together with members on both sides to have witnesses appear. Members on both sides are asking questions. Witnesses are answering those questions.The member chooses to continue speculating and drawing his own conclusions. On this side, we have confidence in the work of members of the committee. We are the government that increased resources for committees so that they could do this important work. It is fascinating to me that the member seems to have no regard for the work of the committee, because it is doing that work. He was there asking for witnesses to appear and now that they are, he seems to be undermining them.
Madam Speaker, well, let us look at the record. Section 139(2) of the Criminal Code says, Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. The Clerk of the Privy Council admitted that he, the Prime Minister's staff and the Prime Minister himself all attempted to influence the outcome of the SNC trial. That is a criminal offence. When will the Liberals admit that?
Madam Speaker, section 139(2) of the Criminal Code states, Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence.The Clerk of the Privy Council admitted that he, the Prime Minister's staff and the Prime Minister himself all attempted to influence the outcome of the SNC-Lavalin trial. That is a criminal offence. When will the Liberals admit that?
Madam Speaker, I know the Liberals are very uncomfortable with this very inconvenient truth. Let me repeat that subsection 139(2) of the Criminal Code says that everyone who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence.We know that the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Prime Minister and Gerry Butts wilfully attempted to have the former Attorney General interfere in the trial. That is a criminal offence. Will the justice minister admit that this constitutes a crime?
Madam Speaker, section 139(2) of the Criminal Code says everyone who wilfully attempts in any manner....to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. The Clerk of the Privy Council has confessed that he, the Prime Minister's staff, and the Prime Minister himself have all attempted to influence the course of the SNC-Lavalin trial.If the Liberals believe they have done nothing wrong, why was the former attorney general fired, and why did Gerry Butts resign?
Madam Speaker, there are indeed two sets of rules: one that increased taxes for the richest 1% in 2016, which the NDP opposed, and another that lowered taxes for the middle class. There is also the rule about not sending cheques to millionaire parents who do not need the money and enhancing the Canada child benefit for nine in 10 families, which was implemented in July 2016. Unfortunately, the NDP also did not support this rule to help middle-class families.
Madam Speaker, on September 4, 2018, SNC-Lavalin was informed that the trial would proceed. On September 17, 2018, the former attorney general decided not to interfere in this matter, but we know that government actors attempted to intervene. Section 139 of the Criminal Code states that every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence.When will the Liberals realize that this is obstruction of justice?
Madam Speaker, subsection 139(2) of the Criminal Code says, Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. We now know that the Prime Minister arranged for the Clerk of the Privy Council and his principal secretary to get the former attorney general to interfere in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. This was a sustained effort to avoid a trial. How are the actions of the Prime Minister not criminal?
Madam Speaker, for eight months, Trump has been holding businesses hostage by imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum exports. Meanwhile, Russia asked for lower tariffs and got them. We are wondering what the Liberals are doing on this file.In my riding, SNOC, Tuba and Norbec are being hard hit by the Liberals' NAFTA 2.0.It is having an impact on local businesses, workers and their families.What do the Liberals have to say to those people?
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.As she knows, yesterday, I reiterated in the House and elsewhere that this is a delicate issue. As Attorney General of Canada, I cannot comment on a subject that could have an impact on a matter that is before the courts, as this one is.
Madam Speaker, on September 4, the office of the public prosecutor informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be moving forward with the criminal trial. On September 17, the former attorney general told the Prime Minister that she would not interfere in the criminal trial. That should have been the end. However, after that meeting, the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's principal secretary tried to get the former attorney general to interfere in the trial.When will the Prime Minister realize that this obstruction of justice is a criminal offence?
Madam Speaker, this week, nine men were executed in Egypt after a grossly unfair trial.These executions reflect the serious worsening of the human rights situation in Egypt, where the government is cracking down on human rights activists, journalists, members of the LGBTQ community and basically anyone who dares to publicly criticize Egypt's military dictatorship.When will the minister break her silence and exert pressure on Egyptian authorities to uphold human rights and the rule of law?
Madam Speaker, every single week an energy company is laying off hundreds of workers or leaving the country altogether, and every week we get inaction and platitudes by the Prime Minister. This week, Steelhead LNG shelved its pipeline in B.C. and Devon Energy announced it is selling its Canadian assets and exiting the country. Why, when it comes to 120,000 unemployed energy workers or a convoy of Canadians who come to Ottawa to fight for their jobs, will this Prime Minister not lift a finger? Why will he not fight for everyone?
Madam Speaker, as long as we are looking at the facts, let me also remind the House that section 139 of the Criminal Code states that every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding is guilty of a crime. The law is clear, and it is unacceptable that the Clerk of the Privy Council tried to get the former attorney general to intervene in the judicial process. When will they realize that their actions are an obstruction of justice and a crime?
Madam Speaker, according to the Criminal Code, everyone who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding is guilty of a crime. We now know that the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's top adviser attempted to force the former attorney general to interfere in the criminal trial of SNC-Lavalin after she told the Prime Minister she would not. The Prime Minister is complicit in these actions. When will the Liberals admit their crime?
Madam Speaker, the Criminal Code states that any attempt to obstruct a judicial proceeding is a crime.On September 4, SNC-Lavalin learned that its criminal trial would go forward. On September 17, the former AG told the PM that she would not interfere in that trial. Now we have learned that three months later, the PM's principal secretary and the Clerk of the Privy Council continued to have discussions with her about interfering.Is it ignorance or arrogance that keeps the Liberals from realizing just how much this looks like obstruction of justice?
Madam Speaker, the Criminal Code is clear that everyone who attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. The public prosecutor informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be proceeding with a criminal trial. The former attorney general said she would not interfere. We know that the PMO, the Clerk of the Privy Council and even the Prime Minister attempted, on several occasions, to get the former attorney general to interfere in the trial. Is that not obstruction of justice?
Madam Speaker, on September 4, the director of public prosecution refused to offer a deferred prosecution agreement to SNC-Lavalin. On September 17, the attorney general said that she would not reverse that decision. During the next several months, a concerted effort was made by the Prime Minister and his senior officials to make her change her mind. The Criminal Code is clear: Every one who wilfully attempts, in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. With everything we now know, how is this not obstruction of justice by the Prime Minister?
Madam Speaker, the Liberal saga continues.Here are the facts. On September 4, the office of the director of public prosecutions informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be moving forward with the case. On September 17, the former attorney general told the Prime Minister she would not interfere in the criminal trial. Yesterday, the Clerk of the Privy Council admitted that the Prime Minister tried to interfere in the process several times. That is a crime.When will the Liberals admit it?
Madam Speaker, we have listened carefully to the Liberals' comments from the beginning of this saga.We now know, and these are clear facts, that the Prime Minister's Office, the Clerk of the Privy Council and even the Prime Minister tried on several occasions to get the former attorney general to intervene in the case against SNC-Lavalin.Section 139 of the Criminal Code clearly sets out the following as a criminal offence: 139 (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding... When will the Prime Minister finally admit that he wilfully tried to obstruct the course of justice?
Madam Speaker, as I said in the other official language but I will repeat once again, this matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee. The member should listen closely, because I have been giving the same answer since the beginning of question period.We know that the justice committee has called in witnesses. We know that members on both sides are asking questions, and the witnesses are answering them.The commissioner and the committee must do their work, and we encourage them to do so.
Madam Speaker, on September 4, 2018, the office of the director of public prosecutions informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be pursuing criminal charges. On September 17, 2018, the former attorney general told the Prime Minister that she would not intervene to influence the decision of the director of public prosecutions. That should have been the end of it, but it was not.We now know that the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister tried to interfere on several occasions to get the former attorney general to intervene in the judicial process. How can it be argued that their actions do not constitute obstruction of justice and are not a crime?
Madam Speaker, today SNC-Lavalin reported billions in losses and said this was attributable to the dispute with Saudi Arabia. The company and senior Liberal officials ramped up their lobbying efforts last year, at the same time that the government was having its Twitter dispute with Saudi Arabia.Did the Liberals bow to corporate pressure because their foreign policy failures were leading to billions in losses?
Madam Speaker, Canadians want to know. The Prime Minister has problems with his exes. His ex-attorney general wants to tell her truth. His ex-senior adviser does not want to talk. Pressure exerted by the PMO on the ex-attorney general violates section 139 of the Criminal Code.When will the Liberals realize that this is obstruction of justice? This is a crime. This is a scandal.
Madam Speaker, a recent article in The Globe and Mail made it clear that Canadian economists are virtually unanimous in the view that a price on pollution reduces greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest possible cost to the economy. They also went on to identify another fact: Under the federal policy that begins this spring, roughly 80 per cent of households will receive rebates that actually exceed the amount they will pay. Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment please clarify why Conservative politicians, not just these Conservative politicians but others as well, are misrepresenting academic research and vastly overstating the costs for average Canadians?
Madam Speaker, developing public transportation in Quebec is a pain in the behind, and it is the federal government's fault.Quebec City cannot build its tramway because Ottawa decided on its own which infrastructure projects it would fund. There is no way to get money from other programs, since Ottawa still imposes conditions. It has money, it collects half of our taxes, but the second criterion in paragraph 4 has not been met.Why does the government not transfer the infrastructure money to Quebec in a lump sum?
Once again, the Conservatives do not listen. They continue speaking when I have the floor.
Madam Speaker, February 12 was International Day Against the Use of Child Soldiers. It is a day to remember that we must protect children from the risk of participating in the horrors of armed conflict.Can the Minister of National Defence update the House on the progress our government is making on Roméo Dallaire's initiative to prevent the use of child soldiers and our re-engagement with the United Nations?
Madam Speaker, the illegal and unjustified U.S. tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum must be lifted. U.S. lawmakers have asked Ambassador Lighthizer to lift those tariffs. This weekend, the minister raised the issue with members of the U.S. Congress, including Nancy Pelosi, who confirmed that our counter-measures are having an impact. Our plan is working. Recently, Republican Kevin Brady indicated that the tariffs would have to be lifted before Congress considers the new NAFTA.
Madam Speaker, when the former attorney general was fired, she emphasized the need for an independent judicial system. Why?When the Prime Minister's chief adviser Gerry Butts resigned, he highlighted the former attorney general. Why?When the former attorney general stood in the House this week, she asked to be allowed to speak her truth. Why?Why will the Prime Minister not let her speak her truth and let Canadians get to the bottom of all this?
Madam Speaker, after 10 years of inaction under Stephen Harper, 99% of our oil exports were still sold to the United States. The Conservatives' approach failed, and they are doubling down on that approach with their disregard for the courts, with no plan to protect the environment and coastal communities and with no plan to meaningfully engage in a two-way dialogue with indigenous peoples. They disregard the courts. We are following the path that has been provided by the Federal Court of Appeal and we are going to do so in the right way.
Madam Speaker, I just finished a tour of the Trans Mountain pipeline, and I heard disappointment from so many people. Construction camps were abandoned. We have massive piles of pipe just waiting to be installed. First nations entrepreneurs are losing money, and planned projects have been put on hold because of the Prime Minister's mistakes. After we paid $4.6 billion, one billion dollars over the sticker price, my constituents need reassurance that there will be shovels in the ground before October 2019. Running out the clock is not an option.
Madam Speaker, I have stated for the record, and I will do it again, that the Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that at every opportunity, verbally and in writing, in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was a decision for the minister of justice to take.We take seriously the responsibility of standing up for jobs and growing the economy. We will always defend and uphold the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law.This matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee. We will work with them. We think they should get to do their work independently of the chamber.
Madam Speaker, last weekend hundreds of workers gathered on the Prairies in support of new construction for new pipelines. They are fed up with Liberal excuses. They gathered because they do not want to hear any more Liberal excuses, they do not want the procrastination to continue, and they cannot afford the Prime Minister's mistakes.If the Liberals will not listen to us about killing their anti-pipeline bill, Bill C-69, will they at least listen to the tens of thousands of energy workers who want this bill killed and stopped immediately?
Madam Speaker, again, yesterday at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the clerk also confirmed that the Prime Minister clearly said at every opportunity that the decision was the justice minister's to make.It has to be said that the Conservatives keep speaking out of both sides of their mouths. In French they claim they have no intention of jeopardizing jobs at SNC-Lavalin, as that hon. member said, but in English, the hon. member for Carleton said he wanted to shut down this company and was not afraid to say so.Their constant doublespeak has to stop.
Madam Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed what veterans knew and the Prime Minister denied. The pension for life scheme falls so short of what veterans were promised that it is reprehensible to Canadians. The report sent a shudder throughout the veterans community by revealing our most severely and permanently injured will receive, on average, $300,000 less under the Liberal pension scam. Why must Canada's most vulnerable injured soldiers and their families pay for the Prime Minister's mistakes?
Madam Speaker, if the Liberal government truly cared about protecting workers and jobs, why was it not there for Sears, Rona and Davie shipyard workers? Where was the government?The Liberals' track record speaks for itself. They help rich corporate executives, and the workers have to fend for themselves. The Liberal government has two sets of rules: one set for the wealthy and one set for everyone else.Why do the Liberals not stand up for our workers who have been left behind, instead of helping their buddies skirt the law?
Madam Speaker, the member was here under 10 years of Stephen Harper when they undermined the work of committees. What is clear is that the Conservatives have chosen a new leader, but their approach to democracy remains exactly the same, and Canadians are noticing. We on this side have increased resources to committees, because we respect our institutions. Canadians should have confidence in their institutions, and that is what we will continue to do. When it comes to officers of Parliament, this side will always respect their work. When it comes to the independent judicial system, we will encourage it to do its work. When it comes to the work of committees, like the justice committee, they are doing their work. Let us let them do their work.
Madam Speaker, he is one of the newer members on that side, and already he is speculating, just like the rest of them. The member should be encouraged to let the justice committee do its important work. The justice committee has members from both sides on it. They are working together to bring witnesses to that committee. Witnesses are appearing. Members are asking tough questions, and they are getting answers. We on this side have confidence in the work committees do in this place, and we will continue to do that, but we should let the record show that just last week, the director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan interference.
Madam Speaker, public transit is a perfect example of how little the federal government understands about Quebec's actual needs. From Saguenay to Longueuil to Trois-Rivières, every one of our cities has infrastructure needs, but federal investment is proportional to ridership on existing public transit networks. The problem is that if the service is not available, there are no riders. There has to be a bus for people to get on.Why won't the federal government just transfer the infrastructure money to Quebec? Afterwards, we can figure things out for ourselves.
Madam Speaker, once again, I encourage all members and all Canadians to really listen to what the witnesses who appeared before the committee said, but we need to look at the facts. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that, in this and every other case, prosecutors exercise their discretion independently. The deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the PMO and the DPP.
Madam Speaker, as I said, the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are doing their job. They have called in witnesses, and the witnesses arrived yesterday. I believe the committee meetings will continue next week.Let us look at the facts. The director of the Public Prosecution Service has confirmed that, in each and every case, prosecutors exercise their discretion independently. The deputy minister of justice confirmed that there is no direct communication in any
Madam Speaker, with the high cost of student loans, day care and rent, many young Canadians are finding it extremely difficult to achieve the dream of home ownership.Through a series of rule changes by the former Conservative government, the maximum term for insured mortgages went from 40 years to 25 years. Instead of making it easier for first-time homebuyers, Liberals further tightened mortgage rules. This is the same old story: While they make life easier for corporate friends, Liberals are shutting out young families from owning their own homes. Will the Liberal government put young families first and commit to introducing a 30-year term on insured mortgages?
Madam Speaker, the Liberals do not seem to understand that reconciliation means housing is a human right. This week they announced funding that represented less than 2% of their national housing strategy to tackle the homelessness crisis of indigenous people in urban centres.Experts have been clear: We need way more than that to address this urgent housing crisis and to solve the fundamental causes of homelessness in urban areas. One in 15 indigenous peoples living in cities is homeless.When will the Liberal government step up with a real plan to address this crisis?
Madam Speaker, I will quote once again. Just last last week, the director of the public prosecution service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration. Yesterday, when asked at justice committee if it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials to discuss the matter with the Attorney General, the Attorney General confirmed those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.I encourage members opposite to stop speculating. The justice committee is doing its work. It is bringing forward witnesses. It is working hard. Let us let it do its work.
Madam Speaker, I hope Canadians are noticing that the Conservatives continue asking the exact same question, and when I am providing the answer, they start yelling so they can never hear the answer, and then they continue getting up and asking the same question, so I will answer it again, and maybe they will listen.Just last week, the director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors, in every case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration. Yesterday the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the PMO and the DPP.
Madam Speaker, for 20 years, many countries have tried to amend an international treaty to stop developed countries from shipping garbage to developing nations, but Canada has refused to agree. The Liberal government talks about increasing recycling, but it is clear that it is not taking responsibility for where our garbage ends up. One hundred and three containers of Canadian trash have been rotting in the Philippines for four years. These containers are full of, not recycling, but diapers, food waste and discarded electronics. When will the minister end this international embarrassment and prevent Canada from shipping its garbage to developing countries?
Madam Speaker, Canada is concerned by the escalation of tensions in Egypt. We have been alarmed by the reaction of security forces during recent peaceful demonstrations and the recent arrests of activists and politicians. We call on all parties in Egypt to exercise restraint, denounce hateful speech and engage in peaceful dialogue.
Madam Speaker, the uncertainty surrounding the government's intentions for the SNC-Lavalin file is having real consequences. Today, the company reported a $1.6-billion loss in the last quarter. At this rate, a fire sale or layoffs cannot be far behind.The government urgently needs to take action.A remediation agreement would punish the culprits, instead of collectively penalizing workers who have done absolutely nothing wrong.When is the government going to start negotiations? Is it waiting until thousands of people lose their jobs?
Madam Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring our veterans receive the benefits and support that they deserve. The needs of Canada's veterans have changed significantly over the past 100 years since the Pension Act was introduced, and our support needs to change with it. Thanks to our government's $10-billion investments, all veterans today, including the most vulnerable, are better off than they were under the Harper Conservatives.
Madam Speaker, let us look at the record. Just last week, the director of public prosecution service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration. Yesterday, the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the PMO and the DPP. The Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that at every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that the decision was for the minister of justice to take.
Madam Speaker, just last week, the director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors, in every case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.Yesterday the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication, in any specific case, between the PMO and the DPP. The Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that At every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was the decision for the Minister of Justice to take.
Madam Speaker, I hope that all members of the House saw the report last week indicating that in the past 20 years, more than 600 people, in 30 different sports, have been abused. Now is the time that we need to stand up as a country, united in ending abuse, discrimination and harassment in sport. Could the Minister of Science and Sport update the House on what our government is doing to stop this problem that affects so many Canadians?
Madam Speaker, people in Pelican Narrows are suffering from a lack of affordable and accessible housing. The community has 266 new housing requests but only the funding to complete three, and that does not include the requests for home renovations.While the Liberals brag about their housing strategy, people in Pelican Narrows are still waiting for a place to call home. They cannot and should not wait any longer.Will the Liberals stop waiting and immediately invest in housing for the people of Pelican Narrows?
Madam Speaker, our government has been steadfast in its commitment to do the hard work necessary to move forward in the right way on TMX by following the guidance from the Federal Court of Appeal. Today the National Energy Board will release its reconsideration report, and that marks an important milestone. We continue to do the work in consulting with first nations, ensuring that where accommodations are possible and reasonable, we will do so. At this moment, we have around eight teams on the ground, meeting with the communities. As well, we have had over 80 meetings with the communities as we move forward with this project in the right way.
Madam Speaker, families, young people and seniors are struggling to pay their bills. They have to contend with the high cost of housing, health care and day care. They are wondering why the Prime Minister is not working hard to make life easier for them instead of bending backwards to give the rich a free ride. When rich executives ask for help, the Liberals jump to attention; when ordinary Canadians need help, they are told to wait.Why are there two sets of rules, one for the rich and another for the rest of us?
Madam Speaker, the misconduct of a Canadian company abroad has recently created some political controversy. More than a year ago, the government announced a Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise to investigate such conduct. Unfortunately, no ombudsperson has been appointed. When asked yesterday, the minister said that the appointment will be announced soon.Can the government commit to appoint an ombudsperson before the House rises this spring?
Madam Speaker, when it comes to the Prime Minister's former principal secretary, he has issued a public letter. He has made that letter available for all Canadians to read and hear his reasons.When it comes to the justice committee, the justice committee has asked for witnesses to appear. Members on both sides of the aisle have worked together to have those witnesses appear. We know that witnesses are appearing. Members are asking questions. We think the committee should do its important work. Members opposite choose to speculate. We are a fact-based government. We will let the facts speak for themselves.
Madam Speaker, that is not evidence. That is the member's speculation. That is the member drawing his own conclusions and this is exactly why Canadians are finding it challenging. Canadians should have confidence in their institutions and that is why we will not undermine the work of committees. We will not undermine the work of officers of Parliament. We respect the independent judicial system because Canadians should have and can have confidence in the independent bodies. Canadians should know that members of Parliament are asking tough questions to witnesses. Witnesses are appearing and answering those questions.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to remind my hon. Bloc Québécois colleague that the agreement with Quebec on public transportation provides for $5.2 billion to be transferred to Quebec. This is 26.2% of the total amount, even though the population of Quebec represents 23.23%. This is the largest transfer per capita. Quebec has significant needs in terms of public transportation. We are committed to Quebec, when it comes to federal funding.
Madam Speaker, as the hon. member full well knows, matters of solicitor-client privilege are exceptionally complex, particularly in this sort of case. We are working to try to find a way such that the former attorney general can in fact speak. We are doing our level best to do that.
Madam Speaker, now we are being asked the same question in French. We are proud to be a bilingual country.Let us look at the facts. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently. The deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the Prime Minister's Office and the DPP. The Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that, at every opportunity, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was a decision for the Minister of Justice to take.
Madam Speaker, we know that the protection of human rights abroad and Canada's commitment within its corporate community to behave with the absolute best of ethical standards are values that all members of the House share. We also know that we are going to appoint the first-ever ombudsperson for corporate social responsibility, and as I said yesterday, that appointment will be announced soon.
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. This has been my priority since I became Minister of Sport.Last June, we announced strong measures to end abuse, discrimination and harassment in sport. Last week, sport ministers from across the country signed a declaration that will create a systemic culture shift in sport, and yesterday I announced the development of a universal code of conduct that our sport partners, such as CAAWS, said that they were thrilled to see.We must put an end to abuse.
Madam Speaker, our country is strongly committed to collaborating with the Philippines government to resolve this issue and is aware of the court decision ordering the importer to ship the material back to Canada. Currently, a joint technical working group is being established, consisting of officials from both countries, to examine the full spectrum of issues related to the removal of the waste. In 2016, we actually amended our own regulations on hazardous waste shipments to prevent this kind of event from happening again. We are committed to working collaboratively to ensure that the material is processed in a more environmentally sustainable way.
Madam Speaker, he said, No pressure, we'll fire you if you don't do what we say, but no pressure. The decision is entirely yours.Here is the chronology we now know. The former attorney general told the Prime Minister on September 17 that she would not push for a special deal for SNC-Lavalin, yet he sent his top adviser on December 5 and his top bureaucrat on December 19 to change her mind. When she did not, she was moved out of the position. Why did the government and the Prime Minister attempt to change the course of justice in this case?
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member of Parliament for LavalLes Îles for his hard work. In 2017, we launched the Vancouver principles on peacekeeping and the prevention of the recruitment and the use of child soldiers, developed alongside the Roméo Dallaire child soldiers initiative.Earlier this month, I attended a workshop with more than 120 member states and international partners that will provide practical advice on how to train forces on peacekeeping operations and how to best support them when they come home.The Vancouver principles, which have the support of 71 states, are a clear example of how our government is re-engaging with the United Nations and promoting peace and security around the world.
Madam Speaker, yesterday, also at justice committee the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed, At every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was the decision for the Minister of Justice to take.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Pontiac for his advocacy on the climate and environment files over these past few years.The fact is that climate change is real, and we have an opportunity and an obligation to do something about it. The opposition has been spending a lot of time misleading Canadians about our climate plan, because, quite frankly, it does not have one of its own to talk about. We made a commitment to Canadians that we were going to take climate change seriously and do it in a way that makes life more affordable. We have established a plan that is going to put more money in the pockets of eight out of 10 families in jurisdictions where this plan applies. We are working with Canadians on the best ways to cut pollution, and we are going to take no lessons from the opposition, which has no plan on how to contribute to the fight against climate change.
Madam Speaker, Canadians can have confidence that the government will always fight for Canadians. Canadians can have confidence in their institutions.I find it fascinating that the member seems to forget that the company actually met with his leader, the leader of the NDP. No differently, the company met with the leader of the Conservatives.What I also find fascinating, as he provides his commentary, is that yesterday he was on a panel, with other members of the committee, and he was saying, Why don't you have confidence in the members of the justice committee? We do. Let them do their work.
Madam Speaker, there were 50 meetings between executives of a company at the highest levels of the Liberal government, and an engineering company meeting on what? Justice issues. That is time the Prime Minister could have spent finding real solutions to our housing crisis, fighting to make medication more inexpensive for Canadians and helping the people in the country who are only $200 away from not being able to pay their bills.When the Liberal government has rich friends knocking at the door, boy does it find time to meet them. However, when Canadians need help, they are told to wait. Why will Liberals not just come clean and tell us who they are really working for?
Madam Speaker, we are following the clear path provided by the Federal Court of Appeal in order to move in the right way, through meaningful consultations. The report was clear that we need to do a better job in consulting indigenous peoples, something that the Conservatives ignored for 10 years, and we need to account for the impact on marine shipping. That is the path that we are taking. We are taking the time to get this right and we are not cutting corners like the Conservatives did.
Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Clerk of the Privy Council admitted that at a September 17 meeting the former attorney general told the Prime Minister that she had decided not to overturn the prosecutor's decision and give SNC-Lavalin a deal to avoid trial. That was the course of justice. However, the Prime Minister sent his top bureaucrat and then separately his top adviser to change that decision and alter the course of justice. When she refused, she was fired. Why?
Madam Speaker, the very difficult circumstances many Canadians, and certainly many indigenous Canadians, find themselves in when it comes to finding an affordable place to call home is something of great concern to this government and has been since the very start of our mandate. That is why in budget 2016, for the first time in 17 years, we increased the budget to fight homelessness in Canada and doubled it.That is not the end of the story. Just a few months ago, we announced the first ever national housing strategy, which is going to change the way in which indigenous Canadians across all of Canada will be able to access a safe and affordable place to call home.
Madam Speaker, I am simply drawing facts from that very committee. We know the Prime Minister found out from his Attorney General that she would not give SNC-Lavalin a special deal. That set in place the course of justice, yet the Prime Minister then sent his top adviser to meet with her at the Chateau Laurier lounge and then his top bureaucrat to call her over the phone to try to change that course of justice. When she refused, he removed her from her position.Why did the Prime Minister attempt to defeat the course of justice in this case?
Madam Speaker, we have said that we on this side of the aisle, the Liberal Party, support the work of the committee. We support the independence of committees. That is exactly why as a government, we have increased the resources of committees because they need to do that important work. The matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee. When it comes to officers of Parliament, we respect their independence and we believe they should do the important work. We respect the independence of the judicial system. A clear difference between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party is that we will not undermine our institutions, like those members choose to continue doing.
Madam Speaker, the government believes that Canadians who have lived quiet, dedicated lives deserve peace of mind in retirement. I would like to point out that our government has created more than 800,000 jobs through the platform it has implemented over the past three years. Canada's unemployment rate is among the lowest in decades, and our government continues to help create good jobs for Canadians, for families, so that they can feel secure and safe.
Madam Speaker, for many Canadians, investing in a home is the biggest investment of their lives.We know how important it is to their financial well-being for that investment to be protected. That is why we took measures to limit the risks in the housing market and make it easier to access long-term financing.Since taking office, we have been focused on giving more tools to middle-class families and young people and more money to those who need it most to help them achieve financial balance, stability, and prosperity.
Madam Speaker, our government recognizes the unacceptable gaps in housing on reserve and in indigenous communities. After decades of neglect and underfunding by the Conservative government, our government is taking action. For first nations housing on reserve alone, we have committed more than $1 billion, with more than 15,000 housing units being built and renovated. We have also rolled out distinctions-based housing for indigenous communities: $600 million for first nations, $500 million for Métis and $400 million for Inuit.
Madam Speaker, as we have said many times and as we have told Mayor Labeaume, we will contribute to the Quebec City tramway. We have offered Quebec over $1 billion for the project. We are still waiting for an answer from the government. In the meantime, we will keep supporting priorities on behalf of Quebeckers.
Madam Speaker, it is important that Canadians have confidence in their institutions. That is exactly why members from both sides who sit on the justice committee worked together to call witnesses. They came to committee, the members were able to ask them questions and they answered them. We have confidence in the members' work on the justice committee. I think they must do their work.
Madam Speaker, we know that the company is doing business right around the world and, in conducting that business, employing many thousands of Canadians. It is very important economic development.We also know that we have embarked on a very aggressive trade diversification strategy. We meet with companies around the world to take the best advantage of that. We believe that Canada is better positioned now to be a leader in international trade than it ever has been before.
Madam Speaker, we on this side will always defend and uphold the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law. We know that this matter is being looked at by both the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee.Once again, we know that this matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee. We have confidence in our institutions. We have confidence in officers of Parliament. We have confidence in the independence of the judicial system. We believe that they should be able to do their work.
Madam Speaker, the justice committee has been working together with members on both sides to have witnesses appear. Members on both sides are asking questions. Witnesses are answering those questions.The member chooses to continue speculating and drawing his own conclusions. On this side, we have confidence in the work of members of the committee. We are the government that increased resources for committees so that they could do this important work. It is fascinating to me that the member seems to have no regard for the work of the committee, because it is doing that work. He was there asking for witnesses to appear and now that they are, he seems to be undermining them.
Most positive speeches
Madam Speaker, the justice committee has been working together with members on both sides to have witnesses appear. Members on both sides are asking questions. Witnesses are answering those questions.The member chooses to continue speculating and drawing his own conclusions. On this side, we have confidence in the work of members of the committee. We are the government that increased resources for committees so that they could do this important work. It is fascinating to me that the member seems to have no regard for the work of the committee, because it is doing that work. He was there asking for witnesses to appear and now that they are, he seems to be undermining them.
Madam Speaker, we on this side will always defend and uphold the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law. We know that this matter is being looked at by both the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee.Once again, we know that this matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee. We have confidence in our institutions. We have confidence in officers of Parliament. We have confidence in the independence of the judicial system. We believe that they should be able to do their work.
Madam Speaker, we know that the company is doing business right around the world and, in conducting that business, employing many thousands of Canadians. It is very important economic development.We also know that we have embarked on a very aggressive trade diversification strategy. We meet with companies around the world to take the best advantage of that. We believe that Canada is better positioned now to be a leader in international trade than it ever has been before.
Madam Speaker, it is important that Canadians have confidence in their institutions. That is exactly why members from both sides who sit on the justice committee worked together to call witnesses. They came to committee, the members were able to ask them questions and they answered them. We have confidence in the members' work on the justice committee. I think they must do their work.
Madam Speaker, as we have said many times and as we have told Mayor Labeaume, we will contribute to the Quebec City tramway. We have offered Quebec over $1 billion for the project. We are still waiting for an answer from the government. In the meantime, we will keep supporting priorities on behalf of Quebeckers.
Madam Speaker, our government recognizes the unacceptable gaps in housing on reserve and in indigenous communities. After decades of neglect and underfunding by the Conservative government, our government is taking action. For first nations housing on reserve alone, we have committed more than $1 billion, with more than 15,000 housing units being built and renovated. We have also rolled out distinctions-based housing for indigenous communities: $600 million for first nations, $500 million for Métis and $400 million for Inuit.
Madam Speaker, for many Canadians, investing in a home is the biggest investment of their lives.We know how important it is to their financial well-being for that investment to be protected. That is why we took measures to limit the risks in the housing market and make it easier to access long-term financing.Since taking office, we have been focused on giving more tools to middle-class families and young people and more money to those who need it most to help them achieve financial balance, stability, and prosperity.
Madam Speaker, the government believes that Canadians who have lived quiet, dedicated lives deserve peace of mind in retirement. I would like to point out that our government has created more than 800,000 jobs through the platform it has implemented over the past three years. Canada's unemployment rate is among the lowest in decades, and our government continues to help create good jobs for Canadians, for families, so that they can feel secure and safe.
Madam Speaker, we have said that we on this side of the aisle, the Liberal Party, support the work of the committee. We support the independence of committees. That is exactly why as a government, we have increased the resources of committees because they need to do that important work. The matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee. When it comes to officers of Parliament, we respect their independence and we believe they should do the important work. We respect the independence of the judicial system. A clear difference between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party is that we will not undermine our institutions, like those members choose to continue doing.
Madam Speaker, I am simply drawing facts from that very committee. We know the Prime Minister found out from his Attorney General that she would not give SNC-Lavalin a special deal. That set in place the course of justice, yet the Prime Minister then sent his top adviser to meet with her at the Chateau Laurier lounge and then his top bureaucrat to call her over the phone to try to change that course of justice. When she refused, he removed her from her position.Why did the Prime Minister attempt to defeat the course of justice in this case?
Madam Speaker, the very difficult circumstances many Canadians, and certainly many indigenous Canadians, find themselves in when it comes to finding an affordable place to call home is something of great concern to this government and has been since the very start of our mandate. That is why in budget 2016, for the first time in 17 years, we increased the budget to fight homelessness in Canada and doubled it.That is not the end of the story. Just a few months ago, we announced the first ever national housing strategy, which is going to change the way in which indigenous Canadians across all of Canada will be able to access a safe and affordable place to call home.
Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Clerk of the Privy Council admitted that at a September 17 meeting the former attorney general told the Prime Minister that she had decided not to overturn the prosecutor's decision and give SNC-Lavalin a deal to avoid trial. That was the course of justice. However, the Prime Minister sent his top bureaucrat and then separately his top adviser to change that decision and alter the course of justice. When she refused, she was fired. Why?
Madam Speaker, we are following the clear path provided by the Federal Court of Appeal in order to move in the right way, through meaningful consultations. The report was clear that we need to do a better job in consulting indigenous peoples, something that the Conservatives ignored for 10 years, and we need to account for the impact on marine shipping. That is the path that we are taking. We are taking the time to get this right and we are not cutting corners like the Conservatives did.
Madam Speaker, there were 50 meetings between executives of a company at the highest levels of the Liberal government, and an engineering company meeting on what? Justice issues. That is time the Prime Minister could have spent finding real solutions to our housing crisis, fighting to make medication more inexpensive for Canadians and helping the people in the country who are only $200 away from not being able to pay their bills.When the Liberal government has rich friends knocking at the door, boy does it find time to meet them. However, when Canadians need help, they are told to wait. Why will Liberals not just come clean and tell us who they are really working for?
Madam Speaker, Canadians can have confidence that the government will always fight for Canadians. Canadians can have confidence in their institutions.I find it fascinating that the member seems to forget that the company actually met with his leader, the leader of the NDP. No differently, the company met with the leader of the Conservatives.What I also find fascinating, as he provides his commentary, is that yesterday he was on a panel, with other members of the committee, and he was saying, Why don't you have confidence in the members of the justice committee? We do. Let them do their work.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Pontiac for his advocacy on the climate and environment files over these past few years.The fact is that climate change is real, and we have an opportunity and an obligation to do something about it. The opposition has been spending a lot of time misleading Canadians about our climate plan, because, quite frankly, it does not have one of its own to talk about. We made a commitment to Canadians that we were going to take climate change seriously and do it in a way that makes life more affordable. We have established a plan that is going to put more money in the pockets of eight out of 10 families in jurisdictions where this plan applies. We are working with Canadians on the best ways to cut pollution, and we are going to take no lessons from the opposition, which has no plan on how to contribute to the fight against climate change.
Madam Speaker, yesterday, also at justice committee the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed, At every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was the decision for the Minister of Justice to take.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member of Parliament for LavalLes Îles for his hard work. In 2017, we launched the Vancouver principles on peacekeeping and the prevention of the recruitment and the use of child soldiers, developed alongside the Roméo Dallaire child soldiers initiative.Earlier this month, I attended a workshop with more than 120 member states and international partners that will provide practical advice on how to train forces on peacekeeping operations and how to best support them when they come home.The Vancouver principles, which have the support of 71 states, are a clear example of how our government is re-engaging with the United Nations and promoting peace and security around the world.
Madam Speaker, he said, No pressure, we'll fire you if you don't do what we say, but no pressure. The decision is entirely yours.Here is the chronology we now know. The former attorney general told the Prime Minister on September 17 that she would not push for a special deal for SNC-Lavalin, yet he sent his top adviser on December 5 and his top bureaucrat on December 19 to change her mind. When she did not, she was moved out of the position. Why did the government and the Prime Minister attempt to change the course of justice in this case?
Madam Speaker, our country is strongly committed to collaborating with the Philippines government to resolve this issue and is aware of the court decision ordering the importer to ship the material back to Canada. Currently, a joint technical working group is being established, consisting of officials from both countries, to examine the full spectrum of issues related to the removal of the waste. In 2016, we actually amended our own regulations on hazardous waste shipments to prevent this kind of event from happening again. We are committed to working collaboratively to ensure that the material is processed in a more environmentally sustainable way.
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. This has been my priority since I became Minister of Sport.Last June, we announced strong measures to end abuse, discrimination and harassment in sport. Last week, sport ministers from across the country signed a declaration that will create a systemic culture shift in sport, and yesterday I announced the development of a universal code of conduct that our sport partners, such as CAAWS, said that they were thrilled to see.We must put an end to abuse.
Madam Speaker, we know that the protection of human rights abroad and Canada's commitment within its corporate community to behave with the absolute best of ethical standards are values that all members of the House share. We also know that we are going to appoint the first-ever ombudsperson for corporate social responsibility, and as I said yesterday, that appointment will be announced soon.
Madam Speaker, now we are being asked the same question in French. We are proud to be a bilingual country.Let us look at the facts. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently. The deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the Prime Minister's Office and the DPP. The Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that, at every opportunity, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was a decision for the Minister of Justice to take.
Madam Speaker, as the hon. member full well knows, matters of solicitor-client privilege are exceptionally complex, particularly in this sort of case. We are working to try to find a way such that the former attorney general can in fact speak. We are doing our level best to do that.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to remind my hon. Bloc Québécois colleague that the agreement with Quebec on public transportation provides for $5.2 billion to be transferred to Quebec. This is 26.2% of the total amount, even though the population of Quebec represents 23.23%. This is the largest transfer per capita. Quebec has significant needs in terms of public transportation. We are committed to Quebec, when it comes to federal funding.
Madam Speaker, that is not evidence. That is the member's speculation. That is the member drawing his own conclusions and this is exactly why Canadians are finding it challenging. Canadians should have confidence in their institutions and that is why we will not undermine the work of committees. We will not undermine the work of officers of Parliament. We respect the independent judicial system because Canadians should have and can have confidence in the independent bodies. Canadians should know that members of Parliament are asking tough questions to witnesses. Witnesses are appearing and answering those questions.
Madam Speaker, when it comes to the Prime Minister's former principal secretary, he has issued a public letter. He has made that letter available for all Canadians to read and hear his reasons.When it comes to the justice committee, the justice committee has asked for witnesses to appear. Members on both sides of the aisle have worked together to have those witnesses appear. We know that witnesses are appearing. Members are asking questions. We think the committee should do its important work. Members opposite choose to speculate. We are a fact-based government. We will let the facts speak for themselves.
Madam Speaker, the misconduct of a Canadian company abroad has recently created some political controversy. More than a year ago, the government announced a Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise to investigate such conduct. Unfortunately, no ombudsperson has been appointed. When asked yesterday, the minister said that the appointment will be announced soon.Can the government commit to appoint an ombudsperson before the House rises this spring?
Madam Speaker, families, young people and seniors are struggling to pay their bills. They have to contend with the high cost of housing, health care and day care. They are wondering why the Prime Minister is not working hard to make life easier for them instead of bending backwards to give the rich a free ride. When rich executives ask for help, the Liberals jump to attention; when ordinary Canadians need help, they are told to wait.Why are there two sets of rules, one for the rich and another for the rest of us?
Madam Speaker, our government has been steadfast in its commitment to do the hard work necessary to move forward in the right way on TMX by following the guidance from the Federal Court of Appeal. Today the National Energy Board will release its reconsideration report, and that marks an important milestone. We continue to do the work in consulting with first nations, ensuring that where accommodations are possible and reasonable, we will do so. At this moment, we have around eight teams on the ground, meeting with the communities. As well, we have had over 80 meetings with the communities as we move forward with this project in the right way.
Madam Speaker, people in Pelican Narrows are suffering from a lack of affordable and accessible housing. The community has 266 new housing requests but only the funding to complete three, and that does not include the requests for home renovations.While the Liberals brag about their housing strategy, people in Pelican Narrows are still waiting for a place to call home. They cannot and should not wait any longer.Will the Liberals stop waiting and immediately invest in housing for the people of Pelican Narrows?
Madam Speaker, let us look at the record. Just last week, the director of public prosecution service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration. Yesterday, the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the PMO and the DPP. The Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that at every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that the decision was for the minister of justice to take.
Madam Speaker, just last week, the director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors, in every case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.Yesterday the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication, in any specific case, between the PMO and the DPP. The Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that At every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was the decision for the Minister of Justice to take.
Madam Speaker, I hope that all members of the House saw the report last week indicating that in the past 20 years, more than 600 people, in 30 different sports, have been abused. Now is the time that we need to stand up as a country, united in ending abuse, discrimination and harassment in sport. Could the Minister of Science and Sport update the House on what our government is doing to stop this problem that affects so many Canadians?
Madam Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring our veterans receive the benefits and support that they deserve. The needs of Canada's veterans have changed significantly over the past 100 years since the Pension Act was introduced, and our support needs to change with it. Thanks to our government's $10-billion investments, all veterans today, including the most vulnerable, are better off than they were under the Harper Conservatives.
Madam Speaker, Canada is concerned by the escalation of tensions in Egypt. We have been alarmed by the reaction of security forces during recent peaceful demonstrations and the recent arrests of activists and politicians. We call on all parties in Egypt to exercise restraint, denounce hateful speech and engage in peaceful dialogue.
Madam Speaker, the uncertainty surrounding the government's intentions for the SNC-Lavalin file is having real consequences. Today, the company reported a $1.6-billion loss in the last quarter. At this rate, a fire sale or layoffs cannot be far behind.The government urgently needs to take action.A remediation agreement would punish the culprits, instead of collectively penalizing workers who have done absolutely nothing wrong.When is the government going to start negotiations? Is it waiting until thousands of people lose their jobs?
Madam Speaker, for 20 years, many countries have tried to amend an international treaty to stop developed countries from shipping garbage to developing nations, but Canada has refused to agree. The Liberal government talks about increasing recycling, but it is clear that it is not taking responsibility for where our garbage ends up. One hundred and three containers of Canadian trash have been rotting in the Philippines for four years. These containers are full of, not recycling, but diapers, food waste and discarded electronics. When will the minister end this international embarrassment and prevent Canada from shipping its garbage to developing countries?
Madam Speaker, I hope Canadians are noticing that the Conservatives continue asking the exact same question, and when I am providing the answer, they start yelling so they can never hear the answer, and then they continue getting up and asking the same question, so I will answer it again, and maybe they will listen.Just last week, the director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors, in every case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration. Yesterday the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the PMO and the DPP.
Madam Speaker, I will quote once again. Just last last week, the director of the public prosecution service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration. Yesterday, when asked at justice committee if it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials to discuss the matter with the Attorney General, the Attorney General confirmed those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.I encourage members opposite to stop speculating. The justice committee is doing its work. It is bringing forward witnesses. It is working hard. Let us let it do its work.
Madam Speaker, the Liberals do not seem to understand that reconciliation means housing is a human right. This week they announced funding that represented less than 2% of their national housing strategy to tackle the homelessness crisis of indigenous people in urban centres.Experts have been clear: We need way more than that to address this urgent housing crisis and to solve the fundamental causes of homelessness in urban areas. One in 15 indigenous peoples living in cities is homeless.When will the Liberal government step up with a real plan to address this crisis?
Madam Speaker, with the high cost of student loans, day care and rent, many young Canadians are finding it extremely difficult to achieve the dream of home ownership.Through a series of rule changes by the former Conservative government, the maximum term for insured mortgages went from 40 years to 25 years. Instead of making it easier for first-time homebuyers, Liberals further tightened mortgage rules. This is the same old story: While they make life easier for corporate friends, Liberals are shutting out young families from owning their own homes. Will the Liberal government put young families first and commit to introducing a 30-year term on insured mortgages?
Madam Speaker, as I said, the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are doing their job. They have called in witnesses, and the witnesses arrived yesterday. I believe the committee meetings will continue next week.Let us look at the facts. The director of the Public Prosecution Service has confirmed that, in each and every case, prosecutors exercise their discretion independently. The deputy minister of justice confirmed that there is no direct communication in any
Madam Speaker, once again, I encourage all members and all Canadians to really listen to what the witnesses who appeared before the committee said, but we need to look at the facts. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that, in this and every other case, prosecutors exercise their discretion independently. The deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the PMO and the DPP.
Madam Speaker, public transit is a perfect example of how little the federal government understands about Quebec's actual needs. From Saguenay to Longueuil to Trois-Rivières, every one of our cities has infrastructure needs, but federal investment is proportional to ridership on existing public transit networks. The problem is that if the service is not available, there are no riders. There has to be a bus for people to get on.Why won't the federal government just transfer the infrastructure money to Quebec? Afterwards, we can figure things out for ourselves.
Madam Speaker, he is one of the newer members on that side, and already he is speculating, just like the rest of them. The member should be encouraged to let the justice committee do its important work. The justice committee has members from both sides on it. They are working together to bring witnesses to that committee. Witnesses are appearing. Members are asking tough questions, and they are getting answers. We on this side have confidence in the work committees do in this place, and we will continue to do that, but we should let the record show that just last week, the director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan interference.
Madam Speaker, the member was here under 10 years of Stephen Harper when they undermined the work of committees. What is clear is that the Conservatives have chosen a new leader, but their approach to democracy remains exactly the same, and Canadians are noticing. We on this side have increased resources to committees, because we respect our institutions. Canadians should have confidence in their institutions, and that is what we will continue to do. When it comes to officers of Parliament, this side will always respect their work. When it comes to the independent judicial system, we will encourage it to do its work. When it comes to the work of committees, like the justice committee, they are doing their work. Let us let them do their work.
Madam Speaker, if the Liberal government truly cared about protecting workers and jobs, why was it not there for Sears, Rona and Davie shipyard workers? Where was the government?The Liberals' track record speaks for itself. They help rich corporate executives, and the workers have to fend for themselves. The Liberal government has two sets of rules: one set for the wealthy and one set for everyone else.Why do the Liberals not stand up for our workers who have been left behind, instead of helping their buddies skirt the law?
Madam Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed what veterans knew and the Prime Minister denied. The pension for life scheme falls so short of what veterans were promised that it is reprehensible to Canadians. The report sent a shudder throughout the veterans community by revealing our most severely and permanently injured will receive, on average, $300,000 less under the Liberal pension scam. Why must Canada's most vulnerable injured soldiers and their families pay for the Prime Minister's mistakes?
Madam Speaker, again, yesterday at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the clerk also confirmed that the Prime Minister clearly said at every opportunity that the decision was the justice minister's to make.It has to be said that the Conservatives keep speaking out of both sides of their mouths. In French they claim they have no intention of jeopardizing jobs at SNC-Lavalin, as that hon. member said, but in English, the hon. member for Carleton said he wanted to shut down this company and was not afraid to say so.Their constant doublespeak has to stop.
Madam Speaker, last weekend hundreds of workers gathered on the Prairies in support of new construction for new pipelines. They are fed up with Liberal excuses. They gathered because they do not want to hear any more Liberal excuses, they do not want the procrastination to continue, and they cannot afford the Prime Minister's mistakes.If the Liberals will not listen to us about killing their anti-pipeline bill, Bill C-69, will they at least listen to the tens of thousands of energy workers who want this bill killed and stopped immediately?
Madam Speaker, I have stated for the record, and I will do it again, that the Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that at every opportunity, verbally and in writing, in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was a decision for the minister of justice to take.We take seriously the responsibility of standing up for jobs and growing the economy. We will always defend and uphold the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law.This matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee. We will work with them. We think they should get to do their work independently of the chamber.
Madam Speaker, I just finished a tour of the Trans Mountain pipeline, and I heard disappointment from so many people. Construction camps were abandoned. We have massive piles of pipe just waiting to be installed. First nations entrepreneurs are losing money, and planned projects have been put on hold because of the Prime Minister's mistakes. After we paid $4.6 billion, one billion dollars over the sticker price, my constituents need reassurance that there will be shovels in the ground before October 2019. Running out the clock is not an option.
Madam Speaker, after 10 years of inaction under Stephen Harper, 99% of our oil exports were still sold to the United States. The Conservatives' approach failed, and they are doubling down on that approach with their disregard for the courts, with no plan to protect the environment and coastal communities and with no plan to meaningfully engage in a two-way dialogue with indigenous peoples. They disregard the courts. We are following the path that has been provided by the Federal Court of Appeal and we are going to do so in the right way.
Madam Speaker, when the former attorney general was fired, she emphasized the need for an independent judicial system. Why?When the Prime Minister's chief adviser Gerry Butts resigned, he highlighted the former attorney general. Why?When the former attorney general stood in the House this week, she asked to be allowed to speak her truth. Why?Why will the Prime Minister not let her speak her truth and let Canadians get to the bottom of all this?
Madam Speaker, the illegal and unjustified U.S. tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum must be lifted. U.S. lawmakers have asked Ambassador Lighthizer to lift those tariffs. This weekend, the minister raised the issue with members of the U.S. Congress, including Nancy Pelosi, who confirmed that our counter-measures are having an impact. Our plan is working. Recently, Republican Kevin Brady indicated that the tariffs would have to be lifted before Congress considers the new NAFTA.
Once again, the Conservatives do not listen. They continue speaking when I have the floor.
Madam Speaker, February 12 was International Day Against the Use of Child Soldiers. It is a day to remember that we must protect children from the risk of participating in the horrors of armed conflict.Can the Minister of National Defence update the House on the progress our government is making on Roméo Dallaire's initiative to prevent the use of child soldiers and our re-engagement with the United Nations?
Madam Speaker, developing public transportation in Quebec is a pain in the behind, and it is the federal government's fault.Quebec City cannot build its tramway because Ottawa decided on its own which infrastructure projects it would fund. There is no way to get money from other programs, since Ottawa still imposes conditions. It has money, it collects half of our taxes, but the second criterion in paragraph 4 has not been met.Why does the government not transfer the infrastructure money to Quebec in a lump sum?
Madam Speaker, a recent article in The Globe and Mail made it clear that Canadian economists are virtually unanimous in the view that a price on pollution reduces greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest possible cost to the economy. They also went on to identify another fact: Under the federal policy that begins this spring, roughly 80 per cent of households will receive rebates that actually exceed the amount they will pay. Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment please clarify why Conservative politicians, not just these Conservative politicians but others as well, are misrepresenting academic research and vastly overstating the costs for average Canadians?
Madam Speaker, Canadians want to know. The Prime Minister has problems with his exes. His ex-attorney general wants to tell her truth. His ex-senior adviser does not want to talk. Pressure exerted by the PMO on the ex-attorney general violates section 139 of the Criminal Code.When will the Liberals realize that this is obstruction of justice? This is a crime. This is a scandal.
Madam Speaker, today SNC-Lavalin reported billions in losses and said this was attributable to the dispute with Saudi Arabia. The company and senior Liberal officials ramped up their lobbying efforts last year, at the same time that the government was having its Twitter dispute with Saudi Arabia.Did the Liberals bow to corporate pressure because their foreign policy failures were leading to billions in losses?
Madam Speaker, on September 4, 2018, the office of the director of public prosecutions informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be pursuing criminal charges. On September 17, 2018, the former attorney general told the Prime Minister that she would not intervene to influence the decision of the director of public prosecutions. That should have been the end of it, but it was not.We now know that the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister tried to interfere on several occasions to get the former attorney general to intervene in the judicial process. How can it be argued that their actions do not constitute obstruction of justice and are not a crime?
Madam Speaker, as I said in the other official language but I will repeat once again, this matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee. The member should listen closely, because I have been giving the same answer since the beginning of question period.We know that the justice committee has called in witnesses. We know that members on both sides are asking questions, and the witnesses are answering them.The commissioner and the committee must do their work, and we encourage them to do so.
Madam Speaker, we have listened carefully to the Liberals' comments from the beginning of this saga.We now know, and these are clear facts, that the Prime Minister's Office, the Clerk of the Privy Council and even the Prime Minister tried on several occasions to get the former attorney general to intervene in the case against SNC-Lavalin.Section 139 of the Criminal Code clearly sets out the following as a criminal offence: 139 (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding... When will the Prime Minister finally admit that he wilfully tried to obstruct the course of justice?
Madam Speaker, the Liberal saga continues.Here are the facts. On September 4, the office of the director of public prosecutions informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be moving forward with the case. On September 17, the former attorney general told the Prime Minister she would not interfere in the criminal trial. Yesterday, the Clerk of the Privy Council admitted that the Prime Minister tried to interfere in the process several times. That is a crime.When will the Liberals admit it?
Madam Speaker, on September 4, the director of public prosecution refused to offer a deferred prosecution agreement to SNC-Lavalin. On September 17, the attorney general said that she would not reverse that decision. During the next several months, a concerted effort was made by the Prime Minister and his senior officials to make her change her mind. The Criminal Code is clear: Every one who wilfully attempts, in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. With everything we now know, how is this not obstruction of justice by the Prime Minister?
Madam Speaker, the Criminal Code is clear that everyone who attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. The public prosecutor informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be proceeding with a criminal trial. The former attorney general said she would not interfere. We know that the PMO, the Clerk of the Privy Council and even the Prime Minister attempted, on several occasions, to get the former attorney general to interfere in the trial. Is that not obstruction of justice?
Madam Speaker, the Criminal Code states that any attempt to obstruct a judicial proceeding is a crime.On September 4, SNC-Lavalin learned that its criminal trial would go forward. On September 17, the former AG told the PM that she would not interfere in that trial. Now we have learned that three months later, the PM's principal secretary and the Clerk of the Privy Council continued to have discussions with her about interfering.Is it ignorance or arrogance that keeps the Liberals from realizing just how much this looks like obstruction of justice?
Madam Speaker, according to the Criminal Code, everyone who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding is guilty of a crime. We now know that the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's top adviser attempted to force the former attorney general to interfere in the criminal trial of SNC-Lavalin after she told the Prime Minister she would not. The Prime Minister is complicit in these actions. When will the Liberals admit their crime?
Madam Speaker, as long as we are looking at the facts, let me also remind the House that section 139 of the Criminal Code states that every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding is guilty of a crime. The law is clear, and it is unacceptable that the Clerk of the Privy Council tried to get the former attorney general to intervene in the judicial process. When will they realize that their actions are an obstruction of justice and a crime?
Madam Speaker, every single week an energy company is laying off hundreds of workers or leaving the country altogether, and every week we get inaction and platitudes by the Prime Minister. This week, Steelhead LNG shelved its pipeline in B.C. and Devon Energy announced it is selling its Canadian assets and exiting the country. Why, when it comes to 120,000 unemployed energy workers or a convoy of Canadians who come to Ottawa to fight for their jobs, will this Prime Minister not lift a finger? Why will he not fight for everyone?
Madam Speaker, this week, nine men were executed in Egypt after a grossly unfair trial.These executions reflect the serious worsening of the human rights situation in Egypt, where the government is cracking down on human rights activists, journalists, members of the LGBTQ community and basically anyone who dares to publicly criticize Egypt's military dictatorship.When will the minister break her silence and exert pressure on Egyptian authorities to uphold human rights and the rule of law?
Madam Speaker, on September 4, the office of the public prosecutor informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be moving forward with the criminal trial. On September 17, the former attorney general told the Prime Minister that she would not interfere in the criminal trial. That should have been the end. However, after that meeting, the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's principal secretary tried to get the former attorney general to interfere in the trial.When will the Prime Minister realize that this obstruction of justice is a criminal offence?
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.As she knows, yesterday, I reiterated in the House and elsewhere that this is a delicate issue. As Attorney General of Canada, I cannot comment on a subject that could have an impact on a matter that is before the courts, as this one is.
Madam Speaker, for eight months, Trump has been holding businesses hostage by imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum exports. Meanwhile, Russia asked for lower tariffs and got them. We are wondering what the Liberals are doing on this file.In my riding, SNOC, Tuba and Norbec are being hard hit by the Liberals' NAFTA 2.0.It is having an impact on local businesses, workers and their families.What do the Liberals have to say to those people?
Madam Speaker, subsection 139(2) of the Criminal Code says, Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. We now know that the Prime Minister arranged for the Clerk of the Privy Council and his principal secretary to get the former attorney general to interfere in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. This was a sustained effort to avoid a trial. How are the actions of the Prime Minister not criminal?
Madam Speaker, on September 4, 2018, SNC-Lavalin was informed that the trial would proceed. On September 17, 2018, the former attorney general decided not to interfere in this matter, but we know that government actors attempted to intervene. Section 139 of the Criminal Code states that every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence.When will the Liberals realize that this is obstruction of justice?
Madam Speaker, there are indeed two sets of rules: one that increased taxes for the richest 1% in 2016, which the NDP opposed, and another that lowered taxes for the middle class. There is also the rule about not sending cheques to millionaire parents who do not need the money and enhancing the Canada child benefit for nine in 10 families, which was implemented in July 2016. Unfortunately, the NDP also did not support this rule to help middle-class families.
Madam Speaker, section 139(2) of the Criminal Code says everyone who wilfully attempts in any manner....to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. The Clerk of the Privy Council has confessed that he, the Prime Minister's staff, and the Prime Minister himself have all attempted to influence the course of the SNC-Lavalin trial.If the Liberals believe they have done nothing wrong, why was the former attorney general fired, and why did Gerry Butts resign?
Madam Speaker, I know the Liberals are very uncomfortable with this very inconvenient truth. Let me repeat that subsection 139(2) of the Criminal Code says that everyone who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence.We know that the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Prime Minister and Gerry Butts wilfully attempted to have the former Attorney General interfere in the trial. That is a criminal offence. Will the justice minister admit that this constitutes a crime?
Madam Speaker, well, let us look at the record. Section 139(2) of the Criminal Code says, Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. The Clerk of the Privy Council admitted that he, the Prime Minister's staff and the Prime Minister himself all attempted to influence the outcome of the SNC trial. That is a criminal offence. When will the Liberals admit that?
Madam Speaker, section 139(2) of the Criminal Code states, Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence.The Clerk of the Privy Council admitted that he, the Prime Minister's staff and the Prime Minister himself all attempted to influence the outcome of the SNC-Lavalin trial. That is a criminal offence. When will the Liberals admit that?
Madam Speaker, the justice committee has been working together with members on both sides to have witnesses appear. Members on both sides are asking questions. Witnesses are answering those questions.The member chooses to continue speculating and drawing his own conclusions. On this side, we have confidence in the work of members of the committee. We are the government that increased resources for committees so that they could do this important work. It is fascinating to me that the member seems to have no regard for the work of the committee, because it is doing that work. He was there asking for witnesses to appear and now that they are, he seems to be undermining them.
Madam Speaker, we on this side will always defend and uphold the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law. We know that this matter is being looked at by both the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee.Once again, we know that this matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee. We have confidence in our institutions. We have confidence in officers of Parliament. We have confidence in the independence of the judicial system. We believe that they should be able to do their work.
Madam Speaker, we know that the company is doing business right around the world and, in conducting that business, employing many thousands of Canadians. It is very important economic development.We also know that we have embarked on a very aggressive trade diversification strategy. We meet with companies around the world to take the best advantage of that. We believe that Canada is better positioned now to be a leader in international trade than it ever has been before.
Madam Speaker, it is important that Canadians have confidence in their institutions. That is exactly why members from both sides who sit on the justice committee worked together to call witnesses. They came to committee, the members were able to ask them questions and they answered them. We have confidence in the members' work on the justice committee. I think they must do their work.
Madam Speaker, as we have said many times and as we have told Mayor Labeaume, we will contribute to the Quebec City tramway. We have offered Quebec over $1 billion for the project. We are still waiting for an answer from the government. In the meantime, we will keep supporting priorities on behalf of Quebeckers.
Madam Speaker, our government recognizes the unacceptable gaps in housing on reserve and in indigenous communities. After decades of neglect and underfunding by the Conservative government, our government is taking action. For first nations housing on reserve alone, we have committed more than $1 billion, with more than 15,000 housing units being built and renovated. We have also rolled out distinctions-based housing for indigenous communities: $600 million for first nations, $500 million for Métis and $400 million for Inuit.
Madam Speaker, for many Canadians, investing in a home is the biggest investment of their lives.We know how important it is to their financial well-being for that investment to be protected. That is why we took measures to limit the risks in the housing market and make it easier to access long-term financing.Since taking office, we have been focused on giving more tools to middle-class families and young people and more money to those who need it most to help them achieve financial balance, stability, and prosperity.
Madam Speaker, the government believes that Canadians who have lived quiet, dedicated lives deserve peace of mind in retirement. I would like to point out that our government has created more than 800,000 jobs through the platform it has implemented over the past three years. Canada's unemployment rate is among the lowest in decades, and our government continues to help create good jobs for Canadians, for families, so that they can feel secure and safe.
Madam Speaker, we have said that we on this side of the aisle, the Liberal Party, support the work of the committee. We support the independence of committees. That is exactly why as a government, we have increased the resources of committees because they need to do that important work. The matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee. When it comes to officers of Parliament, we respect their independence and we believe they should do the important work. We respect the independence of the judicial system. A clear difference between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party is that we will not undermine our institutions, like those members choose to continue doing.
Madam Speaker, I am simply drawing facts from that very committee. We know the Prime Minister found out from his Attorney General that she would not give SNC-Lavalin a special deal. That set in place the course of justice, yet the Prime Minister then sent his top adviser to meet with her at the Chateau Laurier lounge and then his top bureaucrat to call her over the phone to try to change that course of justice. When she refused, he removed her from her position.Why did the Prime Minister attempt to defeat the course of justice in this case?
Madam Speaker, the very difficult circumstances many Canadians, and certainly many indigenous Canadians, find themselves in when it comes to finding an affordable place to call home is something of great concern to this government and has been since the very start of our mandate. That is why in budget 2016, for the first time in 17 years, we increased the budget to fight homelessness in Canada and doubled it.That is not the end of the story. Just a few months ago, we announced the first ever national housing strategy, which is going to change the way in which indigenous Canadians across all of Canada will be able to access a safe and affordable place to call home.
Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Clerk of the Privy Council admitted that at a September 17 meeting the former attorney general told the Prime Minister that she had decided not to overturn the prosecutor's decision and give SNC-Lavalin a deal to avoid trial. That was the course of justice. However, the Prime Minister sent his top bureaucrat and then separately his top adviser to change that decision and alter the course of justice. When she refused, she was fired. Why?
Madam Speaker, we are following the clear path provided by the Federal Court of Appeal in order to move in the right way, through meaningful consultations. The report was clear that we need to do a better job in consulting indigenous peoples, something that the Conservatives ignored for 10 years, and we need to account for the impact on marine shipping. That is the path that we are taking. We are taking the time to get this right and we are not cutting corners like the Conservatives did.
Madam Speaker, there were 50 meetings between executives of a company at the highest levels of the Liberal government, and an engineering company meeting on what? Justice issues. That is time the Prime Minister could have spent finding real solutions to our housing crisis, fighting to make medication more inexpensive for Canadians and helping the people in the country who are only $200 away from not being able to pay their bills.When the Liberal government has rich friends knocking at the door, boy does it find time to meet them. However, when Canadians need help, they are told to wait. Why will Liberals not just come clean and tell us who they are really working for?
Madam Speaker, Canadians can have confidence that the government will always fight for Canadians. Canadians can have confidence in their institutions.I find it fascinating that the member seems to forget that the company actually met with his leader, the leader of the NDP. No differently, the company met with the leader of the Conservatives.What I also find fascinating, as he provides his commentary, is that yesterday he was on a panel, with other members of the committee, and he was saying, Why don't you have confidence in the members of the justice committee? We do. Let them do their work.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Pontiac for his advocacy on the climate and environment files over these past few years.The fact is that climate change is real, and we have an opportunity and an obligation to do something about it. The opposition has been spending a lot of time misleading Canadians about our climate plan, because, quite frankly, it does not have one of its own to talk about. We made a commitment to Canadians that we were going to take climate change seriously and do it in a way that makes life more affordable. We have established a plan that is going to put more money in the pockets of eight out of 10 families in jurisdictions where this plan applies. We are working with Canadians on the best ways to cut pollution, and we are going to take no lessons from the opposition, which has no plan on how to contribute to the fight against climate change.
Madam Speaker, yesterday, also at justice committee the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed, At every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was the decision for the Minister of Justice to take.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member of Parliament for LavalLes Îles for his hard work. In 2017, we launched the Vancouver principles on peacekeeping and the prevention of the recruitment and the use of child soldiers, developed alongside the Roméo Dallaire child soldiers initiative.Earlier this month, I attended a workshop with more than 120 member states and international partners that will provide practical advice on how to train forces on peacekeeping operations and how to best support them when they come home.The Vancouver principles, which have the support of 71 states, are a clear example of how our government is re-engaging with the United Nations and promoting peace and security around the world.
Madam Speaker, he said, No pressure, we'll fire you if you don't do what we say, but no pressure. The decision is entirely yours.Here is the chronology we now know. The former attorney general told the Prime Minister on September 17 that she would not push for a special deal for SNC-Lavalin, yet he sent his top adviser on December 5 and his top bureaucrat on December 19 to change her mind. When she did not, she was moved out of the position. Why did the government and the Prime Minister attempt to change the course of justice in this case?
Madam Speaker, our country is strongly committed to collaborating with the Philippines government to resolve this issue and is aware of the court decision ordering the importer to ship the material back to Canada. Currently, a joint technical working group is being established, consisting of officials from both countries, to examine the full spectrum of issues related to the removal of the waste. In 2016, we actually amended our own regulations on hazardous waste shipments to prevent this kind of event from happening again. We are committed to working collaboratively to ensure that the material is processed in a more environmentally sustainable way.
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. This has been my priority since I became Minister of Sport.Last June, we announced strong measures to end abuse, discrimination and harassment in sport. Last week, sport ministers from across the country signed a declaration that will create a systemic culture shift in sport, and yesterday I announced the development of a universal code of conduct that our sport partners, such as CAAWS, said that they were thrilled to see.We must put an end to abuse.
Madam Speaker, we know that the protection of human rights abroad and Canada's commitment within its corporate community to behave with the absolute best of ethical standards are values that all members of the House share. We also know that we are going to appoint the first-ever ombudsperson for corporate social responsibility, and as I said yesterday, that appointment will be announced soon.
Madam Speaker, now we are being asked the same question in French. We are proud to be a bilingual country.Let us look at the facts. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently. The deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the Prime Minister's Office and the DPP. The Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that, at every opportunity, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was a decision for the Minister of Justice to take.
Madam Speaker, as the hon. member full well knows, matters of solicitor-client privilege are exceptionally complex, particularly in this sort of case. We are working to try to find a way such that the former attorney general can in fact speak. We are doing our level best to do that.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to remind my hon. Bloc Québécois colleague that the agreement with Quebec on public transportation provides for $5.2 billion to be transferred to Quebec. This is 26.2% of the total amount, even though the population of Quebec represents 23.23%. This is the largest transfer per capita. Quebec has significant needs in terms of public transportation. We are committed to Quebec, when it comes to federal funding.
Madam Speaker, that is not evidence. That is the member's speculation. That is the member drawing his own conclusions and this is exactly why Canadians are finding it challenging. Canadians should have confidence in their institutions and that is why we will not undermine the work of committees. We will not undermine the work of officers of Parliament. We respect the independent judicial system because Canadians should have and can have confidence in the independent bodies. Canadians should know that members of Parliament are asking tough questions to witnesses. Witnesses are appearing and answering those questions.
Madam Speaker, when it comes to the Prime Minister's former principal secretary, he has issued a public letter. He has made that letter available for all Canadians to read and hear his reasons.When it comes to the justice committee, the justice committee has asked for witnesses to appear. Members on both sides of the aisle have worked together to have those witnesses appear. We know that witnesses are appearing. Members are asking questions. We think the committee should do its important work. Members opposite choose to speculate. We are a fact-based government. We will let the facts speak for themselves.
Madam Speaker, the misconduct of a Canadian company abroad has recently created some political controversy. More than a year ago, the government announced a Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise to investigate such conduct. Unfortunately, no ombudsperson has been appointed. When asked yesterday, the minister said that the appointment will be announced soon.Can the government commit to appoint an ombudsperson before the House rises this spring?
Madam Speaker, families, young people and seniors are struggling to pay their bills. They have to contend with the high cost of housing, health care and day care. They are wondering why the Prime Minister is not working hard to make life easier for them instead of bending backwards to give the rich a free ride. When rich executives ask for help, the Liberals jump to attention; when ordinary Canadians need help, they are told to wait.Why are there two sets of rules, one for the rich and another for the rest of us?
Madam Speaker, our government has been steadfast in its commitment to do the hard work necessary to move forward in the right way on TMX by following the guidance from the Federal Court of Appeal. Today the National Energy Board will release its reconsideration report, and that marks an important milestone. We continue to do the work in consulting with first nations, ensuring that where accommodations are possible and reasonable, we will do so. At this moment, we have around eight teams on the ground, meeting with the communities. As well, we have had over 80 meetings with the communities as we move forward with this project in the right way.
Madam Speaker, people in Pelican Narrows are suffering from a lack of affordable and accessible housing. The community has 266 new housing requests but only the funding to complete three, and that does not include the requests for home renovations.While the Liberals brag about their housing strategy, people in Pelican Narrows are still waiting for a place to call home. They cannot and should not wait any longer.Will the Liberals stop waiting and immediately invest in housing for the people of Pelican Narrows?
Madam Speaker, let us look at the record. Just last week, the director of public prosecution service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration. Yesterday, the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the PMO and the DPP. The Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that at every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that the decision was for the minister of justice to take.
Madam Speaker, just last week, the director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors, in every case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.Yesterday the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication, in any specific case, between the PMO and the DPP. The Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that At every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was the decision for the Minister of Justice to take.
Madam Speaker, I hope that all members of the House saw the report last week indicating that in the past 20 years, more than 600 people, in 30 different sports, have been abused. Now is the time that we need to stand up as a country, united in ending abuse, discrimination and harassment in sport. Could the Minister of Science and Sport update the House on what our government is doing to stop this problem that affects so many Canadians?
Madam Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring our veterans receive the benefits and support that they deserve. The needs of Canada's veterans have changed significantly over the past 100 years since the Pension Act was introduced, and our support needs to change with it. Thanks to our government's $10-billion investments, all veterans today, including the most vulnerable, are better off than they were under the Harper Conservatives.
Madam Speaker, Canada is concerned by the escalation of tensions in Egypt. We have been alarmed by the reaction of security forces during recent peaceful demonstrations and the recent arrests of activists and politicians. We call on all parties in Egypt to exercise restraint, denounce hateful speech and engage in peaceful dialogue.
Madam Speaker, the uncertainty surrounding the government's intentions for the SNC-Lavalin file is having real consequences. Today, the company reported a $1.6-billion loss in the last quarter. At this rate, a fire sale or layoffs cannot be far behind.The government urgently needs to take action.A remediation agreement would punish the culprits, instead of collectively penalizing workers who have done absolutely nothing wrong.When is the government going to start negotiations? Is it waiting until thousands of people lose their jobs?
Madam Speaker, for 20 years, many countries have tried to amend an international treaty to stop developed countries from shipping garbage to developing nations, but Canada has refused to agree. The Liberal government talks about increasing recycling, but it is clear that it is not taking responsibility for where our garbage ends up. One hundred and three containers of Canadian trash have been rotting in the Philippines for four years. These containers are full of, not recycling, but diapers, food waste and discarded electronics. When will the minister end this international embarrassment and prevent Canada from shipping its garbage to developing countries?
Madam Speaker, I hope Canadians are noticing that the Conservatives continue asking the exact same question, and when I am providing the answer, they start yelling so they can never hear the answer, and then they continue getting up and asking the same question, so I will answer it again, and maybe they will listen.Just last week, the director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors, in every case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration. Yesterday the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the PMO and the DPP.
Madam Speaker, I will quote once again. Just last last week, the director of the public prosecution service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration. Yesterday, when asked at justice committee if it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials to discuss the matter with the Attorney General, the Attorney General confirmed those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.I encourage members opposite to stop speculating. The justice committee is doing its work. It is bringing forward witnesses. It is working hard. Let us let it do its work.
Madam Speaker, the Liberals do not seem to understand that reconciliation means housing is a human right. This week they announced funding that represented less than 2% of their national housing strategy to tackle the homelessness crisis of indigenous people in urban centres.Experts have been clear: We need way more than that to address this urgent housing crisis and to solve the fundamental causes of homelessness in urban areas. One in 15 indigenous peoples living in cities is homeless.When will the Liberal government step up with a real plan to address this crisis?
Madam Speaker, with the high cost of student loans, day care and rent, many young Canadians are finding it extremely difficult to achieve the dream of home ownership.Through a series of rule changes by the former Conservative government, the maximum term for insured mortgages went from 40 years to 25 years. Instead of making it easier for first-time homebuyers, Liberals further tightened mortgage rules. This is the same old story: While they make life easier for corporate friends, Liberals are shutting out young families from owning their own homes. Will the Liberal government put young families first and commit to introducing a 30-year term on insured mortgages?
Madam Speaker, as I said, the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are doing their job. They have called in witnesses, and the witnesses arrived yesterday. I believe the committee meetings will continue next week.Let us look at the facts. The director of the Public Prosecution Service has confirmed that, in each and every case, prosecutors exercise their discretion independently. The deputy minister of justice confirmed that there is no direct communication in any
Madam Speaker, once again, I encourage all members and all Canadians to really listen to what the witnesses who appeared before the committee said, but we need to look at the facts. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that, in this and every other case, prosecutors exercise their discretion independently. The deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the PMO and the DPP.
Madam Speaker, public transit is a perfect example of how little the federal government understands about Quebec's actual needs. From Saguenay to Longueuil to Trois-Rivières, every one of our cities has infrastructure needs, but federal investment is proportional to ridership on existing public transit networks. The problem is that if the service is not available, there are no riders. There has to be a bus for people to get on.Why won't the federal government just transfer the infrastructure money to Quebec? Afterwards, we can figure things out for ourselves.
Madam Speaker, he is one of the newer members on that side, and already he is speculating, just like the rest of them. The member should be encouraged to let the justice committee do its important work. The justice committee has members from both sides on it. They are working together to bring witnesses to that committee. Witnesses are appearing. Members are asking tough questions, and they are getting answers. We on this side have confidence in the work committees do in this place, and we will continue to do that, but we should let the record show that just last week, the director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan interference.
Madam Speaker, the member was here under 10 years of Stephen Harper when they undermined the work of committees. What is clear is that the Conservatives have chosen a new leader, but their approach to democracy remains exactly the same, and Canadians are noticing. We on this side have increased resources to committees, because we respect our institutions. Canadians should have confidence in their institutions, and that is what we will continue to do. When it comes to officers of Parliament, this side will always respect their work. When it comes to the independent judicial system, we will encourage it to do its work. When it comes to the work of committees, like the justice committee, they are doing their work. Let us let them do their work.
Madam Speaker, if the Liberal government truly cared about protecting workers and jobs, why was it not there for Sears, Rona and Davie shipyard workers? Where was the government?The Liberals' track record speaks for itself. They help rich corporate executives, and the workers have to fend for themselves. The Liberal government has two sets of rules: one set for the wealthy and one set for everyone else.Why do the Liberals not stand up for our workers who have been left behind, instead of helping their buddies skirt the law?
Madam Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed what veterans knew and the Prime Minister denied. The pension for life scheme falls so short of what veterans were promised that it is reprehensible to Canadians. The report sent a shudder throughout the veterans community by revealing our most severely and permanently injured will receive, on average, $300,000 less under the Liberal pension scam. Why must Canada's most vulnerable injured soldiers and their families pay for the Prime Minister's mistakes?
Madam Speaker, again, yesterday at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the clerk also confirmed that the Prime Minister clearly said at every opportunity that the decision was the justice minister's to make.It has to be said that the Conservatives keep speaking out of both sides of their mouths. In French they claim they have no intention of jeopardizing jobs at SNC-Lavalin, as that hon. member said, but in English, the hon. member for Carleton said he wanted to shut down this company and was not afraid to say so.Their constant doublespeak has to stop.
Madam Speaker, last weekend hundreds of workers gathered on the Prairies in support of new construction for new pipelines. They are fed up with Liberal excuses. They gathered because they do not want to hear any more Liberal excuses, they do not want the procrastination to continue, and they cannot afford the Prime Minister's mistakes.If the Liberals will not listen to us about killing their anti-pipeline bill, Bill C-69, will they at least listen to the tens of thousands of energy workers who want this bill killed and stopped immediately?
Madam Speaker, I have stated for the record, and I will do it again, that the Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that at every opportunity, verbally and in writing, in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was a decision for the minister of justice to take.We take seriously the responsibility of standing up for jobs and growing the economy. We will always defend and uphold the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law.This matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee. We will work with them. We think they should get to do their work independently of the chamber.
Madam Speaker, I just finished a tour of the Trans Mountain pipeline, and I heard disappointment from so many people. Construction camps were abandoned. We have massive piles of pipe just waiting to be installed. First nations entrepreneurs are losing money, and planned projects have been put on hold because of the Prime Minister's mistakes. After we paid $4.6 billion, one billion dollars over the sticker price, my constituents need reassurance that there will be shovels in the ground before October 2019. Running out the clock is not an option.
Madam Speaker, after 10 years of inaction under Stephen Harper, 99% of our oil exports were still sold to the United States. The Conservatives' approach failed, and they are doubling down on that approach with their disregard for the courts, with no plan to protect the environment and coastal communities and with no plan to meaningfully engage in a two-way dialogue with indigenous peoples. They disregard the courts. We are following the path that has been provided by the Federal Court of Appeal and we are going to do so in the right way.
Madam Speaker, when the former attorney general was fired, she emphasized the need for an independent judicial system. Why?When the Prime Minister's chief adviser Gerry Butts resigned, he highlighted the former attorney general. Why?When the former attorney general stood in the House this week, she asked to be allowed to speak her truth. Why?Why will the Prime Minister not let her speak her truth and let Canadians get to the bottom of all this?
Madam Speaker, the illegal and unjustified U.S. tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum must be lifted. U.S. lawmakers have asked Ambassador Lighthizer to lift those tariffs. This weekend, the minister raised the issue with members of the U.S. Congress, including Nancy Pelosi, who confirmed that our counter-measures are having an impact. Our plan is working. Recently, Republican Kevin Brady indicated that the tariffs would have to be lifted before Congress considers the new NAFTA.
Once again, the Conservatives do not listen. They continue speaking when I have the floor.
Madam Speaker, February 12 was International Day Against the Use of Child Soldiers. It is a day to remember that we must protect children from the risk of participating in the horrors of armed conflict.Can the Minister of National Defence update the House on the progress our government is making on Roméo Dallaire's initiative to prevent the use of child soldiers and our re-engagement with the United Nations?
Madam Speaker, developing public transportation in Quebec is a pain in the behind, and it is the federal government's fault.Quebec City cannot build its tramway because Ottawa decided on its own which infrastructure projects it would fund. There is no way to get money from other programs, since Ottawa still imposes conditions. It has money, it collects half of our taxes, but the second criterion in paragraph 4 has not been met.Why does the government not transfer the infrastructure money to Quebec in a lump sum?
Madam Speaker, a recent article in The Globe and Mail made it clear that Canadian economists are virtually unanimous in the view that a price on pollution reduces greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest possible cost to the economy. They also went on to identify another fact: Under the federal policy that begins this spring, roughly 80 per cent of households will receive rebates that actually exceed the amount they will pay. Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment please clarify why Conservative politicians, not just these Conservative politicians but others as well, are misrepresenting academic research and vastly overstating the costs for average Canadians?
Madam Speaker, Canadians want to know. The Prime Minister has problems with his exes. His ex-attorney general wants to tell her truth. His ex-senior adviser does not want to talk. Pressure exerted by the PMO on the ex-attorney general violates section 139 of the Criminal Code.When will the Liberals realize that this is obstruction of justice? This is a crime. This is a scandal.
Madam Speaker, today SNC-Lavalin reported billions in losses and said this was attributable to the dispute with Saudi Arabia. The company and senior Liberal officials ramped up their lobbying efforts last year, at the same time that the government was having its Twitter dispute with Saudi Arabia.Did the Liberals bow to corporate pressure because their foreign policy failures were leading to billions in losses?
Madam Speaker, on September 4, 2018, the office of the director of public prosecutions informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be pursuing criminal charges. On September 17, 2018, the former attorney general told the Prime Minister that she would not intervene to influence the decision of the director of public prosecutions. That should have been the end of it, but it was not.We now know that the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister tried to interfere on several occasions to get the former attorney general to intervene in the judicial process. How can it be argued that their actions do not constitute obstruction of justice and are not a crime?
Madam Speaker, as I said in the other official language but I will repeat once again, this matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee. The member should listen closely, because I have been giving the same answer since the beginning of question period.We know that the justice committee has called in witnesses. We know that members on both sides are asking questions, and the witnesses are answering them.The commissioner and the committee must do their work, and we encourage them to do so.
Madam Speaker, we have listened carefully to the Liberals' comments from the beginning of this saga.We now know, and these are clear facts, that the Prime Minister's Office, the Clerk of the Privy Council and even the Prime Minister tried on several occasions to get the former attorney general to intervene in the case against SNC-Lavalin.Section 139 of the Criminal Code clearly sets out the following as a criminal offence: 139 (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding... When will the Prime Minister finally admit that he wilfully tried to obstruct the course of justice?
Madam Speaker, the Liberal saga continues.Here are the facts. On September 4, the office of the director of public prosecutions informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be moving forward with the case. On September 17, the former attorney general told the Prime Minister she would not interfere in the criminal trial. Yesterday, the Clerk of the Privy Council admitted that the Prime Minister tried to interfere in the process several times. That is a crime.When will the Liberals admit it?
Madam Speaker, on September 4, the director of public prosecution refused to offer a deferred prosecution agreement to SNC-Lavalin. On September 17, the attorney general said that she would not reverse that decision. During the next several months, a concerted effort was made by the Prime Minister and his senior officials to make her change her mind. The Criminal Code is clear: Every one who wilfully attempts, in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. With everything we now know, how is this not obstruction of justice by the Prime Minister?
Madam Speaker, the Criminal Code is clear that everyone who attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. The public prosecutor informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be proceeding with a criminal trial. The former attorney general said she would not interfere. We know that the PMO, the Clerk of the Privy Council and even the Prime Minister attempted, on several occasions, to get the former attorney general to interfere in the trial. Is that not obstruction of justice?
Madam Speaker, the Criminal Code states that any attempt to obstruct a judicial proceeding is a crime.On September 4, SNC-Lavalin learned that its criminal trial would go forward. On September 17, the former AG told the PM that she would not interfere in that trial. Now we have learned that three months later, the PM's principal secretary and the Clerk of the Privy Council continued to have discussions with her about interfering.Is it ignorance or arrogance that keeps the Liberals from realizing just how much this looks like obstruction of justice?
Madam Speaker, according to the Criminal Code, everyone who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding is guilty of a crime. We now know that the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's top adviser attempted to force the former attorney general to interfere in the criminal trial of SNC-Lavalin after she told the Prime Minister she would not. The Prime Minister is complicit in these actions. When will the Liberals admit their crime?
Madam Speaker, as long as we are looking at the facts, let me also remind the House that section 139 of the Criminal Code states that every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding is guilty of a crime. The law is clear, and it is unacceptable that the Clerk of the Privy Council tried to get the former attorney general to intervene in the judicial process. When will they realize that their actions are an obstruction of justice and a crime?
Madam Speaker, every single week an energy company is laying off hundreds of workers or leaving the country altogether, and every week we get inaction and platitudes by the Prime Minister. This week, Steelhead LNG shelved its pipeline in B.C. and Devon Energy announced it is selling its Canadian assets and exiting the country. Why, when it comes to 120,000 unemployed energy workers or a convoy of Canadians who come to Ottawa to fight for their jobs, will this Prime Minister not lift a finger? Why will he not fight for everyone?
Madam Speaker, this week, nine men were executed in Egypt after a grossly unfair trial.These executions reflect the serious worsening of the human rights situation in Egypt, where the government is cracking down on human rights activists, journalists, members of the LGBTQ community and basically anyone who dares to publicly criticize Egypt's military dictatorship.When will the minister break her silence and exert pressure on Egyptian authorities to uphold human rights and the rule of law?
Madam Speaker, on September 4, the office of the public prosecutor informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be moving forward with the criminal trial. On September 17, the former attorney general told the Prime Minister that she would not interfere in the criminal trial. That should have been the end. However, after that meeting, the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's principal secretary tried to get the former attorney general to interfere in the trial.When will the Prime Minister realize that this obstruction of justice is a criminal offence?
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.As she knows, yesterday, I reiterated in the House and elsewhere that this is a delicate issue. As Attorney General of Canada, I cannot comment on a subject that could have an impact on a matter that is before the courts, as this one is.
Madam Speaker, for eight months, Trump has been holding businesses hostage by imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum exports. Meanwhile, Russia asked for lower tariffs and got them. We are wondering what the Liberals are doing on this file.In my riding, SNOC, Tuba and Norbec are being hard hit by the Liberals' NAFTA 2.0.It is having an impact on local businesses, workers and their families.What do the Liberals have to say to those people?
Madam Speaker, subsection 139(2) of the Criminal Code says, Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. We now know that the Prime Minister arranged for the Clerk of the Privy Council and his principal secretary to get the former attorney general to interfere in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. This was a sustained effort to avoid a trial. How are the actions of the Prime Minister not criminal?
Madam Speaker, on September 4, 2018, SNC-Lavalin was informed that the trial would proceed. On September 17, 2018, the former attorney general decided not to interfere in this matter, but we know that government actors attempted to intervene. Section 139 of the Criminal Code states that every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence.When will the Liberals realize that this is obstruction of justice?
Madam Speaker, there are indeed two sets of rules: one that increased taxes for the richest 1% in 2016, which the NDP opposed, and another that lowered taxes for the middle class. There is also the rule about not sending cheques to millionaire parents who do not need the money and enhancing the Canada child benefit for nine in 10 families, which was implemented in July 2016. Unfortunately, the NDP also did not support this rule to help middle-class families.
Madam Speaker, section 139(2) of the Criminal Code says everyone who wilfully attempts in any manner....to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. The Clerk of the Privy Council has confessed that he, the Prime Minister's staff, and the Prime Minister himself have all attempted to influence the course of the SNC-Lavalin trial.If the Liberals believe they have done nothing wrong, why was the former attorney general fired, and why did Gerry Butts resign?
Madam Speaker, I know the Liberals are very uncomfortable with this very inconvenient truth. Let me repeat that subsection 139(2) of the Criminal Code says that everyone who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence.We know that the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Prime Minister and Gerry Butts wilfully attempted to have the former Attorney General interfere in the trial. That is a criminal offence. Will the justice minister admit that this constitutes a crime?
Madam Speaker, well, let us look at the record. Section 139(2) of the Criminal Code says, Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. The Clerk of the Privy Council admitted that he, the Prime Minister's staff and the Prime Minister himself all attempted to influence the outcome of the SNC trial. That is a criminal offence. When will the Liberals admit that?
Madam Speaker, section 139(2) of the Criminal Code states, Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence.The Clerk of the Privy Council admitted that he, the Prime Minister's staff and the Prime Minister himself all attempted to influence the outcome of the SNC-Lavalin trial. That is a criminal offence. When will the Liberals admit that?