Most toxic speeches
Mr. Speaker, too many people skip the medicine they need because the prices are too high. All Canadians deserve coverage, but instead, the Liberals are cooking up a half-baked plan that leaves workers out. Do the Liberals not know that employer coverage is not what it used to be? Corporations have been rolling back benefits for working people, leaving them with not only less coverage but often with no coverage for the drugs they need. Canadians want a comprehensive, universal, single-payer pharmacare plan that covers everyone equally. Why are the Liberals refusing to listen?
Mr. Speaker, that line is getting old.One thing is for sure: the committee is ready, but the Prime Minister has refused to testify. We also know the Prime Minister and his team pressured the former attorney general to halt criminal proceedings against SNC-Lavalin.They did not see eye to eye on that, so what did the Prime Minister do? He gave her the boot.Now Canadians know that their self-styled feminist, transparent government is nothing but a joke.Once again, by what lawful authority did the Prime Minister attempt to halt criminal proceedings against SNC-Lavalin?
Mr. Speaker, SNC-Lavalin just lost $1.6 billion. In real terms, this amount represents jobs lost in Quebec. What is the opposition talking about? It is talking about the Prime Minister and his bad relationship with the former minister of justice. What is the opposition talking about? It is talking about the Prime Minister and his bad relationships. What is the Prime Minister talking about? He is talking about who he can blame for his fiasco. The real issue is getting lost. Without a remediation agreement, Quebec will lose a head office and thousands of jobs.When will the Minister of Justice sign a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin?
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record. 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. We on this side have increased resources to committees so that committees can do their work. Members from both sides sit on the justice committee. Justice committee members have come together to ask for witnesses to appear. Witnesses are appearing.I will remind the House and all Canadians what Canadians said no to. Canadians said no to the failed approach of austerity by the Conservatives, which their leader continues to fight for.
Mr. Speaker, that was not the question that was asked. Canadians deserve an answer to this very simple question. Has the RCMP contacted the PMO or the Prime Minister about this alleged interference in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin?
Mr. Speaker, in Canada, we have the rule of law. In Canada, we have a system that works. Canadians can have confidence in that system. Members from both sides of the aisle sit on the justice committee. The member who asked the question is actually a member of the justice committee. He knows very well that when witnesses appear who have been asked to appear, witnesses are answering questions. We on this side have confidence in the work of the justice committee. It is really too bad that the member and his party do not.
Mr. Speaker, our government understands that research excellence and equity go hand in hand, and with that I would like to acknowledge the extraordinary Professor Donna Strickland, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics. She is only the third woman in history to do so, the first one in 55 years.We have made changes to the Canada excellence research chairs and the Canada research chairs, and we will be bringing Athena SWAN to Canada.
Mr. Speaker, again, she is saying things that just are not true. We know they tried to interfere with an independent legal officer. They tried to get the former attorney general to change her mind. She said no. She said no on multiple occasions. In her view, and the view of the independent Crown prosecutor, SNC-Lavalin, based on serious corruption and bribery charges, did not qualify for one of these deals the way the Liberals themselves wrote it. Now they are trying to hide behind crocodile tears that no one is believing.Here is a very specific question for the House leader. Did anyone in the Liberal government communicate to SNC-Lavalin
Mr. Speaker, once again, we on this side will always respect the work of committees. We on this side will always respect the independent judicial system. We on this side will always respect the independence of officers of Parliament. We on this side will always protect Canadian jobs and stand up for them. We know our plan is working, and that is why Canadians have created over 800,000 jobs since we took office. What is the record of the Conservatives? They had the least amount of growth, the worst growth since the Great Depression. Now we know why. Because they will not stand up for Canadian jobs.
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, the government, under the Prime Minister's leadership, increased resources to committees to help them do their work.We know that the MPs who sit on the Standing Committee on Justice, who come from both sides of the aisle, are doing their work. They are asking witnesses to appear, and the witnesses are appearing and answering questions.The striking thing is that this member claims to have no intention of hurting the employees of SNC-Lavalin. He says so himself. However, the member for Carleton says something quite different in English. He said
Mr. Speaker, in 2006, SNC-Lavalin illegally donated nearly $110,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada and its associations. Today, SNC-Lavalin needs help because it is in big trouble.The machinery was then set in motion. The company had more than 50 meetings with the government. Why?Over those two years, the company had 14 meetings with the Prime Minister's Office, or one meeting every two months. Why?The fact that the former justice minister will appear before the committee is something, and I look forward to hearing what she has to say. However, I would like to know why there were so many meetings with lobbyists.
Mr. Speaker, she is not going to get her honorary set of gold SNC cufflinks with excuses like that, because we are talking about illegal interventions by the Prime Minister's Office. The Prime Minister and the clerk met with the former justice minister on September 17. She said no. The PMO official met her on December 5. She said no. The PMO staff met with her staff on December 18. They said no. Then the Clerk of the Privy Council met with her on December 19. She said no and was removed from her position soon after.In the interest of corruption, I ask the Prime Minister this. When does no mean no for the Liberal Party?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have confidence in their institutions. They have lost confidence in the Liberal government.It was the Clerk of the Privy Council who made it very clear that the SNC-Lavalin special deal was never discussed at cabinet, yet the Prime Minister refused to answer direct questions on this matter, citing cabinet confidence.Either the Prime Minister was misleading Canadians, or the Clerk of the Privy Council was misleading Canadians. Which one of them was misleading Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, is that not an interesting admission? They now claim that they can sign a direct deal between the public works department and the company to protect pensioners and jobs. That was supposedly the justification for interrupting the criminal proceedings in the first place, so if they have the ability to do this without blocking the prosecution, there must be another motive for having tried to secure a deferred public prosecution agreement. Will the minister admit that they were just trying to protect their corporate cronies and not the jobs of the workers?
Mr. Speaker, the government is working now on changing the policy so that the company could get an administrative agreement even after conviction. In other words, it did not need to go about blocking the prosecution to achieve that goal. If it was not to protect the workers or the pensioners or any other innocent party, who does it leave that the government was actually protecting? Is it not clear that this company, which gave over $100,000 in illegal donations to the Liberal Party, is the real organization these Liberals are trying to protect?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that if he had allowed SNC-Lavalin to face criminal conviction, the company would go out of business, because corporate criminals are banned from federal contracts. But wait; in December 2015, the government gave SNC a deal exempting it from the ban, despite criminal charges. Now the government is changing the policy to exempt SNC even if it is convicted. If the Prime Minister plans to allow SNC to get contracts, even after a conviction, why did he need to intervene to stop the company from going to trial in the first place?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know the truth about the SNC-Lavalin case.However, yesterday, the Prime Minister and the Liberal members refused the request for the Prime Minister to testify before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.Will he answer a simple question? Did anyone in the PMO or any of the ministers close to him assure SNC-Lavalin that there would not be a criminal trial, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for this genius pipeline-owning Prime Minister, the one who handed over $4.5 billion to a Texas oil company after its pipeline was thrown out of court. Now he is looking to spend another $10 billion to $15 billion of our money. The National Energy Board admits that this pipeline will hammer the environment, hurt indigenous relations and further wreck our climate. Governing is about making choices, and the Liberals are actually weighing the choice between protecting an orca population, repairing indigenous relations and actually fixing our carbon emissions, or building their pipeline. Which one is it going to be?
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Conservatives has just confirmed that there are two ongoing court cases. We on this side take seriously the responsibility of standing up for jobs and growing the economy. The justice official backgrounder on remediation agreements states that two of the main purposes for remediation agreements are, one, to hold the organization accountable for wrongdoing and, two, to reduce the harm that a criminal conviction of an organization could have for employees, pensioners, stakeholders and other third parties who did not take part in the offence. We will always protect Canadian jobs. That is what we do on this side.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday's letter from the former justice minister shows the extraordinary steps she has had to take to force the Prime Minister's hand to lift the legal gag order so she can speak truth to a parliamentary committee. However, she is not the only person we need to hear from in the SNC-Lavalin scandal. We notice that there were numerous attempts by the Prime Minister's staff to pressure her into intervening in an independent legal investigation after it was found out that SNC was not eligible and they used a manifestly illegal argument, which was the economic interest.In the interests of fairness, will the Prime Minister agree that Katie Telford and Gerry Butts and the rest of his staff will also testify in this hearing?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have no respect for committees. Those of us on this side of the House know that members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights have called witnesses to appear. The witnesses are appearing and answering questions from members on both sides.We know this matter is currently before the Commissioner of Ethics and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We on this side of the House respect the work of the commissioner and the committee. Clearly the Conservatives do not.
Mr. Speaker, following the decision of the director of public prosecutions, there were three separate attempts to pressure the former attorney general. That pressure did not come from mere lackeys.First it was the Prime Minister, then his principal secretary, and finally Canada's top public servant. Those three individuals, the most powerful people in the Canadian government, put direct pressure on the former attorney general. The question is very simple, since we still have not had an answer.Was this matter discussed at cabinet, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely not aware of any activity in relation to the RCMP, neither should we be. The RCMP is completely independent and it will pursue whatever matters it deems appropriate to pursue. For the opposition to attempt to politicize the situation is absolutely improper and contrary to the best interests of law enforcement in this country.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the justice committee, a former judge testified that the RCMP integrity unit should thoroughly examine the Prime Minister's alleged interference with SNC-Lavalin's criminal trial. I have a simple question. Has the Prime Minister or anyone in the PMO been contacted by the RCMP?
Mr. Speaker, unlike the New Democratic Party, we on this side of the House do our homework.We want to make sure that we develop a pharmacare plan that will meet the needs of all Canadians. We created the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare to do just that.I look forward to seeing the council's recommendations. We will receive its report later this year.
Mr. Speaker, the government is hiding the truth, two opposition parties could not care less about workers, and thousands of jobs are in jeopardy, but no one is doing a thing. Ottawa sure has its priorities straight.When will someone from this government realize that their inaction on the SNC-Lavalin matter could cost Quebec thousands of jobs?
Mr. Speaker, it was the Conservative government that put in place the integrity regime, and our government is working to in fact enhance it. We are increasing the scope of activities that could result in debarment from contracts with the government with our enhanced integrity regime. We are looking at putting in place a stronger integrity regime that definitely will benefit Canadians and make sure that Canadians' money is spent with integrity.
I cannot blame her, Mr. Speaker. I would not want to answer my questions either. I have one question, which is very simple. I would like to know if between September 4 and October 10 the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Office, any cabinet minister, any lobbyist or anyone associated with the Prime Minister's Office indicated to SNC-Lavalin or gave assurances that it would be able to get a deferred public
Mr. Speaker, I am going to break it down super simple. On September 4, the director of public prosecutions told SNC-Lavalin that there would be no agreement coming its way. They did not report it, and they did not think it was real until October, but miraculously, there were copious meetings between SNC-Lavalin lobbyists and the Prime Minister's Office and the Clerk of the Privy Council,So let us try this again. Who told them that they were going to be able to get out of going to court?
Mr. Speaker, it is the practice of the government to put in place administrative agreements with companies while criminal proceedings are under way. This administrative agreement will terminate if there is a criminal conviction. In the meantime, we cannot comment on any ongoing court cases.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is pursuing what is an absolutely improper line of questioning. The fact of the matter is that the RCMP is independent and should not be dragged into controversies on the floor of the House of Commons. It enforces the laws of Canada and does it at its own volition and discretion, and that is the way it should be in a free and open democracy.
Mr. Speaker, that is one of the many members who was denying that members of the justice committee could do their work and would be able to meet. Today, that committee is meeting. The member and his party as well as the Conservatives said the justice committee would not be calling forward witnesses. Witnesses are appearing. They are answering questions. The member and his party as well as the Conservatives said the former attorney general would not be invited to speak. Members of the justice committee invited her to speak. She will be speaking. They need to stop undermining the work of committees and start respecting our institutions so that Canadians know that they can as well.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives will continue to speculate. We know that is their approach. It was their approach for 10 years under Stephen Harper, and unfortunately that remains the case today.Canadians are paying attention. They have not forgotten the rule book that the Conservatives released so that they could undermine and destroy committees. We on this side increased resources to committees, so that committees could do their important work.What was confirmed by the justice committee is that when the Clerk of the Privy Council appeared at committee to answer questions, he said, 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.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the year, when the Prime Minister fired the former attorney general of Canada, she wrote a letter that spoke volumes. She wrote that it was vital to maintain a separation between the criminal justice system and politics. However, that is the exact problem at the heart of the Liberal scandal that has been rattling our country for the past three weeks.We know that, on September 4, the director of public prosecutions said that she would be moving forward with the case against SNC-Lavalin.I have a perfectly simple question. Did cabinet discuss this matter, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, after eight years in this place, I thought that nothing could surprise me, but the Liberals can.The National Energy Board said in its report that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion does not respect indigenous rights, that it constitutes a danger to our environment and that it will affect an endangered species. However, the Liberals are going to move forward with the project anyway, on the pretext that it is in the national interest.Are we to understand that the Liberals believe that protecting our environment and respecting first nations is not in the national interest?
Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed that, at every opportunity, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was a decision for the minister of justice to take. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that, in each and every case, prosecutors 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.What is clear is that the Conservatives are saying one thing in French and something else in English. They should stop doing that.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected our government because of our plan to grow the economy and protect the environment. That is exactly what we are doing with a $1.5-billion investment in our oceans protection plan. We are also following the recommendations made by the Federal Court of Appeal concerning the progress of TMX. If it were up to the NDP, there would be no new investments in the natural resources sector. Fortunately, it is up to Canadians, who elected a government to grow the economy and protect the environment.
Mr. Speaker, in the SNC-Lavalin affair, the government claims that it is protecting jobs. The Minister of Transport keeps repeating that safety is his top priority.Meanwhile, Aéroports de Montréal, the Montreal airport authority, is raking in record profits while asking its employees to take a significant pay cut under the threat of contracting the work out. If that is not a hint of an intention to privatize, I do not know what is. Will the minister promise that these jobs, such as those related to safety certification, will not be contracted out on the cheap?
Mr. Speaker, with something as important as a national pharmacare program, this side of the House wants to get it done right, and that is why we are doing our homework. I am very pleased that we have put together an advisory council on the implementation of a national pharmacare program. We have six Canadian experts who are looking at this matter and having conversations with Canadians. I look forward to receiving the report later this spring to meet the needs of all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Liberals' cover-up on this SNC-Lavalin scandal is that they are having trouble keeping their stories straight.The Clerk of the Privy Council testified last week that there was no discussion of the special deal for SNC-Lavalin at cabinet, but the Minister of National Revenue went on the radio and said that the SNC-Lavalin deal was discussed at cabinet. Only one of these people can be telling the truth. Which one of them is it?
Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on improving the quality, the coverage, and most importantly, the price of telecommunication services for Canadians no matter where they live. Can the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development speak to the latest step our government is taking to ensure Canadian consumers have the quality services they deserve at affordable prices?
Mr. Speaker, everyone in Canada deserves a safe, affordable place to call home, but the housing crisis is leaving many of us out in the cold. People need solutions now, not years from now. That is why Burnaby South elected Jagmeet Singh, a leader who understands the urgency of the housing crisis, unlike the Liberals, who fail to act. Canadians cannot wait any longer. Why are the Liberals so quick on their feet when their rich corporate friends need something, yet refuse to ensure safe, affordable housing for those who desperately need it now?
Mr. Speaker, somebody is going to have to answer this question, because on September 4, the director of public prosecutions actually informed SNC-Lavalin that it would not be receiving a deferred public prosecution agreement. However, the audited financial statements of SNC-Lavalin indicate that the company was advised by the director of PPSC in October 2018 that it would not be invited by the PPSC. Who in the Prime Minister's Office gave the assurance between September 4 and October 10 that there would not be a problem with the PPSC?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the justice committee, retired judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond testified that public officials must be able to point to lawful authority for their actions. What lawful authority did the Prime Minister have to conspire to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with bribery? What lawful authority?
Mr. Speaker, I asked a very simple and perfectly legitimate question. Did a cabinet minister, the Prime Minister's Office or anyone from the Prime Minister's inner circle tell SNC-Lavalin that it could avoid a criminal trial for the matter we are now all aware of that was brought to light over three weeks ago?Why is the Prime Minister refusing to explain his actions to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights?
Mr. Speaker, I feel like the hon. House leader is being paid by the word today.I would say this. I have very few words on this matter. What I would like to know is this.I am sorry. I cannot
Mr. Speaker, once again, it is not surprising that the Conservatives will undermine the work of committees. Once again, it is not surprising that the Conservatives will undermine the work of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. They did it for 10 years under Stephen Harper. Today they have chosen a new leader, but it still remains the same party as Stephen Harper's. Canadians can have confidence in their institutions. We on this side will let them do their work. They are meeting. They are calling forward witnesses. Witnesses are appearing and answering those tough questions. Members from both sides are present.
Mr. Speaker, we know that cannot be their motivation. We know that because when they wrote the law they specifically excluded the national economic interest. They wrote the law and then tried to get the former attorney general to break the law. She said no. Apparently people in the Prime Minister's Office would not take no for an answer. Why would the Prime Minister not accept the decision of the independent prosecutor of Canada?
Mr. Speaker, over 350 delegates from the Canadian Labour Congress are in Ottawa today to talk about pension security and pharmacare. They echoed similar concerns brought by the coalition of retiree organizations last week in Ottawa. It is clear that workers and retirees want the Liberals to finally take action to provide real pension security for seniors and to introduce a fully universal pharmacare program. Canadians are no longer buying the empty promises. They want solutions now. Are the Liberals listening? When will they finally take action?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Mississauga EastCooksville for championing affordability issues. As he has highlighted, our government has recently announced a policy directive requiring the CRTC to look at competition, affordability, consumer interests and innovation, because wireless data plans are up to 32% cheaper than the national average in regions with strong competition. We are promoting more competition and more choice so that Canadians can have more affordable plans.
Mr. Speaker, they will continue to speculate, but we, on this side of the House, are interested in the facts.The leader of the Conservative Party met with the company, as did the leader of the NDP. The Conservative deputy leader said in committee that she did not want to give the impression or go on the record as saying that there was anything wrong with meeting with SNC-Lavalin.We, on this side of the House, respect the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We respect the work of all committees. That is exactly why we increased resources to committees. We will not take the Conservative approach.
Mr. Speaker, once again let us look at the record. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan considerations. 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 former minister of justice to take.We on this side have lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians so that we could increase them on the wealthiest 1%. The NDP said no to that measure.We on this side brought in the Canada child benefit. Today, Stats Canada confirmed that 278,000 kids have been lifted out of poverty and over 800,000 Canadians. The NDP
Mr. Speaker, again it certainly feels like the Liberals are not in the business of answering the question. The question is quite simple and Canadians deserve to know. There is a crisis in the rule of law. This is not politics as usual. This is serious and Canadians know there is a deeper scandal.Again, has any current or former cabinet minister or Liberal staffer been contacted by the RCMP over the SNC-Lavalin affair or anything else pertaining to the former attorney general's portfolio, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, the court provided us with a clear path to move this project forward in the right way, and that is what we are delivering. The member for SkeenaBulkley Valley, a supporter of the LNG Canada project that will go through his riding and create 10,000 good jobs, seems to pick and choose the pipelines he supports. The members of the NDP caucus seem to think they can pick and choose which court rulings they listen to. We know how important this process is to Canadians. We are working each day to get it right.
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Safety and it is a very direct question.Has any staff member or any minister been contacted by the RCMP with respect to the SNC-Lavalin investigation? The answer is simple: yes or no.
Mr. Speaker, as members of the House should know, the RCMP is totally independent. It never consults the Minister of Public Safety with respect to whether to launch or pursue an investigation, and that is exactly how it should be in a free and open democracy like ours.
Mr. Speaker, people across the country are struggling to afford their medications and struggling to make ends meet. Instead of helping these people, the Liberal government continues to tell them that they must wait.Unions are in Ottawa this week to urge the government to work on creating a universal pharmacare program that is fully funded for everyone. People clearly need a single-payer universal pharmacare system that provides equal coverage to everyone. When will this government take action?
Mr. Speaker, that member has definitely demonstrated where the priorities of the Conservatives are at.We on this side have respect for committees. We have respect for the independence of the judicial system. We have respect for officers of Parliament.We on this side lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians by increasing them on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians. Conservatives voted against it.We on this side introduced the Canada child benefit, a tax-free benefit. Today, Statistics Canada has confirmed 278,000 kids have been lifted out of poverty. Over 800,000 Canadians are benefiting from this program. Conservatives voted against it. Our focus will always be on Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, as I replied in my last answer, we are not aware of any such activity in relation to the RCMP and neither should we be, because the RCMP is completely independent.
Mr. Speaker, once again, the leader of the NDP met with SNC-Lavalin representatives. The leader of the Conservatives met with them also. The leaders of both parties met with them. Everyone knows this, and the leaders are not hiding it.We know that the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are doing their job. We, on this side of the House, firmly believe that they will do their job and ask questions, and that the witnesses will be able to respond.
Mr. Speaker, our government works to ensure the highest ethical standards for government procurement and effectively addressing wrongdoing. We have developed and are implementing a stronger integrity regime that holds companies accountable. PSPC has entered into an administrative agreement with this company while criminal proceedings are under way. This agreement permits the company to contract with the government while meeting strict corporate compliance conditions, ensuring strong oversight while protecting innocent third parties, like pensioners and employees, from financial harm.
Mr. Speaker, the illegal trip to the Aga Khan's billionaire island, the lucrative clam fishing contract directly awarded to an in-law, investigations on shady land deals in Brampton, four groping scandals, including the feminist Prime Minister himself, and now obstructing justice to prevent the rich executives accused of bribing the Gadhafi regime from facing a trial. Enough is enough.Why are there two sets of rules: one that benefits the Prime Minister and his cronies, and one that hurts everyone else?
Mr. Speaker, in 2010, the MP for Papineau gave his support to a campaign for the establishment of a United Nations parliament that would have power to adopt binding regulations on Canada. His government has been imposing UN recommendations on Canada on issues such as climate change and migration.Is the government planning to turn our country into a post-national subdivision of the UN or is it going to stand up for Canada as a sovereign nation deciding its own future?
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have confidence in our institutions and in the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The clerk confirmed that, at every opportunity, the Prime Minister clearly stated that this was a decision for the justice minister to take.Interestingly, the member opposite himself said he did not intend to harm SNC-Lavalin employees, but, in English, the member for Carleton said he wanted to shut down the company and was not afraid to say so. They need to be clear with the
Mr. Speaker, the member continues to speculate rather than look at the facts. Let us look at the record so that Canadians can be reassured that they can have confidence in their institutions. 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. Last week, 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, the Prime Minister said it was a decision
Mr. Speaker, the justice official backgrounder on remediation agreements states two of the main purposes for remediation agreements: one, to hold the organization accountable for wrongdoing; and, two, to reduce the harm a criminal conviction of an organization could have for employees, pensioners, shareholders and other third parties who did not take part in the offence.The record shows that the leader of the Conservative Party met with the company. We know that the leader of the NDP met with the company. We know the deputy leader herself said on the record that she disagreed that there is anything wrong with meeting the company.We on this side will focus on Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we do not believe in conspiracy theories; we go with facts. The UN global compact on migration is a framework agreement that allows countries to work together on issues such as foreign credentials recognition, which is a benefit for Canada. In fact, a lot of the measures in the agreement are actually other countries catching up to what Canada is already succeeding at. We will never apologize for being the world leader in settlement and integration of newcomers. Why? Because it is in our economic interests. It is the right thing to do, but it is also the smart thing to do. We are leading the world in talent attraction and investment, because investment follows talent.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons often talks about what is happening at the justice committee.In fact, yesterday afternoon, retired judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond testified that all public officials must be able to point to lawful authority for their actions.In light of this, could the Prime Minister, who refuses to appear in committee, tell us whether he attempted to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with corruption, without regard for lawful authority?
Mr. Speaker, clearly, the NDP and Conservative members are sharing talking points, but 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 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.
Mr. Speaker, there is a world of difference between one meeting and 50 meetings. Here is what we know. The director of public prosecutions formally rejected a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin on September 4. Two weeks later, on September 17, the Prime Minister met with the former justice minister to discuss the matter. The day after that meeting, SNC-Lavalin lobbyists managed to get four meetings with senior officials and ministers. Would the Minister of Finance or the Minister of International Trade Diversification, who each took one of those meetings, be willing to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to explain what those conversations were about?
Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes how important science is in Canada. We rely on science every day for clean air and water, to improve health care for Canadians and to contribute to exciting new breakthroughs that help prepare us for the jobs and economy of tomorrow.We also know that when we invest in women, we strengthen our economy for everyone.Could the Minister of Science and Sport tell the House how we are increasing inclusion at our universities?
Mr. Speaker, the government is continually trying to find new ways to justify the political interference in an ongoing court case by the Prime Minister and his key advisers. The law on this is actually very clear. If an organization, like SNC-Lavalin, is charged with bribery, then the law states, the prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest.The former attorney general made her decision. She said no, so why did the Prime Minister not take no for an answer?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his work on the pension security file.Our government takes pension security for seniors very seriously. It is our government that, after decades, has invested the time, energy and effort to get this right. That was included in the budget as well as my mandate letter. As a result of that, we have had consultations. We have had over 4,000 submissions. We want to have an evidence-based solution and ensure pensioners do not suffer unintended consequences. We are working hard and we are going to get this right.
Mr. Speaker, once again I will reassure Canadians that they can trust their institutions. We will share, once again, what happened at the justice committee last week.When it was asked if it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials to discuss the matter with the Attorney General, the Attorney General confirmed that those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.When asked about conversations about cabinet colleagues in his role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General and whether they were appropriate, the Attorney General answered, Absolutely.We have always and we will always have confidence in our institutions, and Canadians can as well.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the member opposite for raising this very important question of the housing crisis that exists in many parts of Canada.That is because for too many years the federal government was not a leader and was not a partner in housing. That has changed. Since 2016 we have invested an additional $5.7 billion and have helped a million families. Last year, we launched the historic, first-ever national housing strategy, which is going to transform housing. We look forward to working with provinces and territories.
Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that, even though the legislation exists, there are ongoing court cases, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment.
Mr. Speaker, instead of respecting the former attorney general and the independence of her office, the Prime Minister launched a concerted campaign to change her mind, a concerted campaign to interfere with the independence of the office of the Attorney General. What lawful authority did he have to do that?
Again, Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record. 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.Last week, the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there is no direct communication, in any specific case, between the PMO and the DPP.The Clerk of the Privy Council also 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.We on this side will not undermine the work of committees or the commissioner, like the Conservatives
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kenora for his tireless work on behalf of his constituents. He knows that for this government, safety is our top priority. That is why I was delighted to join him at the airport in the community of Red Lake to highlight the new de-icing equipment and the new, improved runway lighting that is going to make the airport even safer. It is important for local residents, for tourists and for the local businesses that we will always put safety in front of everything at our regional airports.
Mr. Speaker, I am really happy to get up and talk about the fact that since we were elected we have created 800,000 great paying jobs. This year, we are transforming the youth employment strategy to make sure that more young people have opportunities to succeed in the workplace. We are ensuring that every young person who wants an opportunity to apply for a summer job has that opportunity. Seventy thousand young people across the country will benefit from this.
Mr. Speaker, the director of public prosecutions has confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently.On this side of the House, the government has done its job properly and has followed all the rules and laws. We stand up for the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law. We know that this case was extensively discussed by the Premier of Quebec and many other individuals, including MPs. The case is currently before the Ethics Commissioner and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.We can absolutely stand up for the workers, suppliers and retirees of a company like SNC-Lavalin while at the same time complying with ethics rules and all of the other legal rules surrounding these discussions.On this side of the House, we always stand up for workers in Quebec and across the country and for suppliers and retirees. That is what we are doing on this side of the House. We would like the opposition to talk about standing up for workers too from time to time.
Mr. Speaker, constant snow and ice buildup on runways can sometimes present a challenge for pilots in landing safely at regional airports. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in the Kenora riding, there are 22 airports of this kind. My constituents rely on Red Lake Municipal Airport to support our local economy and to maintain social well-being within our community. Can the minister please inform my constituents about what is being done to help local airports address their safety concerns?
Mr. Speaker, too many people skip the medicine they need because the prices are too high. All Canadians deserve coverage, but instead, the Liberals are cooking up a half-baked plan that leaves workers out. Do the Liberals not know that employer coverage is not what it used to be? Corporations have been rolling back benefits for working people, leaving them with not only less coverage but often with no coverage for the drugs they need. Canadians want a comprehensive, universal, single-payer pharmacare plan that covers everyone equally. Why are the Liberals refusing to listen?
Mr. Speaker, that line is getting old.One thing is for sure: the committee is ready, but the Prime Minister has refused to testify. We also know the Prime Minister and his team pressured the former attorney general to halt criminal proceedings against SNC-Lavalin.They did not see eye to eye on that, so what did the Prime Minister do? He gave her the boot.Now Canadians know that their self-styled feminist, transparent government is nothing but a joke.Once again, by what lawful authority did the Prime Minister attempt to halt criminal proceedings against SNC-Lavalin?
Mr. Speaker, SNC-Lavalin just lost $1.6 billion. In real terms, this amount represents jobs lost in Quebec. What is the opposition talking about? It is talking about the Prime Minister and his bad relationship with the former minister of justice. What is the opposition talking about? It is talking about the Prime Minister and his bad relationships. What is the Prime Minister talking about? He is talking about who he can blame for his fiasco. The real issue is getting lost. Without a remediation agreement, Quebec will lose a head office and thousands of jobs.When will the Minister of Justice sign a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin?
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record. 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. We on this side have increased resources to committees so that committees can do their work. Members from both sides sit on the justice committee. Justice committee members have come together to ask for witnesses to appear. Witnesses are appearing.I will remind the House and all Canadians what Canadians said no to. Canadians said no to the failed approach of austerity by the Conservatives, which their leader continues to fight for.
Mr. Speaker, that was not the question that was asked. Canadians deserve an answer to this very simple question. Has the RCMP contacted the PMO or the Prime Minister about this alleged interference in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin?
Mr. Speaker, in Canada, we have the rule of law. In Canada, we have a system that works. Canadians can have confidence in that system. Members from both sides of the aisle sit on the justice committee. The member who asked the question is actually a member of the justice committee. He knows very well that when witnesses appear who have been asked to appear, witnesses are answering questions. We on this side have confidence in the work of the justice committee. It is really too bad that the member and his party do not.
Mr. Speaker, our government understands that research excellence and equity go hand in hand, and with that I would like to acknowledge the extraordinary Professor Donna Strickland, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics. She is only the third woman in history to do so, the first one in 55 years.We have made changes to the Canada excellence research chairs and the Canada research chairs, and we will be bringing Athena SWAN to Canada.
Mr. Speaker, again, she is saying things that just are not true. We know they tried to interfere with an independent legal officer. They tried to get the former attorney general to change her mind. She said no. She said no on multiple occasions. In her view, and the view of the independent Crown prosecutor, SNC-Lavalin, based on serious corruption and bribery charges, did not qualify for one of these deals the way the Liberals themselves wrote it. Now they are trying to hide behind crocodile tears that no one is believing.Here is a very specific question for the House leader. Did anyone in the Liberal government communicate to SNC-Lavalin
Mr. Speaker, once again, we on this side will always respect the work of committees. We on this side will always respect the independent judicial system. We on this side will always respect the independence of officers of Parliament. We on this side will always protect Canadian jobs and stand up for them. We know our plan is working, and that is why Canadians have created over 800,000 jobs since we took office. What is the record of the Conservatives? They had the least amount of growth, the worst growth since the Great Depression. Now we know why. Because they will not stand up for Canadian jobs.
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, the government, under the Prime Minister's leadership, increased resources to committees to help them do their work.We know that the MPs who sit on the Standing Committee on Justice, who come from both sides of the aisle, are doing their work. They are asking witnesses to appear, and the witnesses are appearing and answering questions.The striking thing is that this member claims to have no intention of hurting the employees of SNC-Lavalin. He says so himself. However, the member for Carleton says something quite different in English. He said
Mr. Speaker, in 2006, SNC-Lavalin illegally donated nearly $110,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada and its associations. Today, SNC-Lavalin needs help because it is in big trouble.The machinery was then set in motion. The company had more than 50 meetings with the government. Why?Over those two years, the company had 14 meetings with the Prime Minister's Office, or one meeting every two months. Why?The fact that the former justice minister will appear before the committee is something, and I look forward to hearing what she has to say. However, I would like to know why there were so many meetings with lobbyists.
Mr. Speaker, she is not going to get her honorary set of gold SNC cufflinks with excuses like that, because we are talking about illegal interventions by the Prime Minister's Office. The Prime Minister and the clerk met with the former justice minister on September 17. She said no. The PMO official met her on December 5. She said no. The PMO staff met with her staff on December 18. They said no. Then the Clerk of the Privy Council met with her on December 19. She said no and was removed from her position soon after.In the interest of corruption, I ask the Prime Minister this. When does no mean no for the Liberal Party?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have confidence in their institutions. They have lost confidence in the Liberal government.It was the Clerk of the Privy Council who made it very clear that the SNC-Lavalin special deal was never discussed at cabinet, yet the Prime Minister refused to answer direct questions on this matter, citing cabinet confidence.Either the Prime Minister was misleading Canadians, or the Clerk of the Privy Council was misleading Canadians. Which one of them was misleading Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, is that not an interesting admission? They now claim that they can sign a direct deal between the public works department and the company to protect pensioners and jobs. That was supposedly the justification for interrupting the criminal proceedings in the first place, so if they have the ability to do this without blocking the prosecution, there must be another motive for having tried to secure a deferred public prosecution agreement. Will the minister admit that they were just trying to protect their corporate cronies and not the jobs of the workers?
Mr. Speaker, the government is working now on changing the policy so that the company could get an administrative agreement even after conviction. In other words, it did not need to go about blocking the prosecution to achieve that goal. If it was not to protect the workers or the pensioners or any other innocent party, who does it leave that the government was actually protecting? Is it not clear that this company, which gave over $100,000 in illegal donations to the Liberal Party, is the real organization these Liberals are trying to protect?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that if he had allowed SNC-Lavalin to face criminal conviction, the company would go out of business, because corporate criminals are banned from federal contracts. But wait; in December 2015, the government gave SNC a deal exempting it from the ban, despite criminal charges. Now the government is changing the policy to exempt SNC even if it is convicted. If the Prime Minister plans to allow SNC to get contracts, even after a conviction, why did he need to intervene to stop the company from going to trial in the first place?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know the truth about the SNC-Lavalin case.However, yesterday, the Prime Minister and the Liberal members refused the request for the Prime Minister to testify before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.Will he answer a simple question? Did anyone in the PMO or any of the ministers close to him assure SNC-Lavalin that there would not be a criminal trial, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for this genius pipeline-owning Prime Minister, the one who handed over $4.5 billion to a Texas oil company after its pipeline was thrown out of court. Now he is looking to spend another $10 billion to $15 billion of our money. The National Energy Board admits that this pipeline will hammer the environment, hurt indigenous relations and further wreck our climate. Governing is about making choices, and the Liberals are actually weighing the choice between protecting an orca population, repairing indigenous relations and actually fixing our carbon emissions, or building their pipeline. Which one is it going to be?
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Conservatives has just confirmed that there are two ongoing court cases. We on this side take seriously the responsibility of standing up for jobs and growing the economy. The justice official backgrounder on remediation agreements states that two of the main purposes for remediation agreements are, one, to hold the organization accountable for wrongdoing and, two, to reduce the harm that a criminal conviction of an organization could have for employees, pensioners, stakeholders and other third parties who did not take part in the offence. We will always protect Canadian jobs. That is what we do on this side.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday's letter from the former justice minister shows the extraordinary steps she has had to take to force the Prime Minister's hand to lift the legal gag order so she can speak truth to a parliamentary committee. However, she is not the only person we need to hear from in the SNC-Lavalin scandal. We notice that there were numerous attempts by the Prime Minister's staff to pressure her into intervening in an independent legal investigation after it was found out that SNC was not eligible and they used a manifestly illegal argument, which was the economic interest.In the interests of fairness, will the Prime Minister agree that Katie Telford and Gerry Butts and the rest of his staff will also testify in this hearing?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have no respect for committees. Those of us on this side of the House know that members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights have called witnesses to appear. The witnesses are appearing and answering questions from members on both sides.We know this matter is currently before the Commissioner of Ethics and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We on this side of the House respect the work of the commissioner and the committee. Clearly the Conservatives do not.
Mr. Speaker, following the decision of the director of public prosecutions, there were three separate attempts to pressure the former attorney general. That pressure did not come from mere lackeys.First it was the Prime Minister, then his principal secretary, and finally Canada's top public servant. Those three individuals, the most powerful people in the Canadian government, put direct pressure on the former attorney general. The question is very simple, since we still have not had an answer.Was this matter discussed at cabinet, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely not aware of any activity in relation to the RCMP, neither should we be. The RCMP is completely independent and it will pursue whatever matters it deems appropriate to pursue. For the opposition to attempt to politicize the situation is absolutely improper and contrary to the best interests of law enforcement in this country.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the justice committee, a former judge testified that the RCMP integrity unit should thoroughly examine the Prime Minister's alleged interference with SNC-Lavalin's criminal trial. I have a simple question. Has the Prime Minister or anyone in the PMO been contacted by the RCMP?
Mr. Speaker, unlike the New Democratic Party, we on this side of the House do our homework.We want to make sure that we develop a pharmacare plan that will meet the needs of all Canadians. We created the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare to do just that.I look forward to seeing the council's recommendations. We will receive its report later this year.
Mr. Speaker, the government is hiding the truth, two opposition parties could not care less about workers, and thousands of jobs are in jeopardy, but no one is doing a thing. Ottawa sure has its priorities straight.When will someone from this government realize that their inaction on the SNC-Lavalin matter could cost Quebec thousands of jobs?
Mr. Speaker, it was the Conservative government that put in place the integrity regime, and our government is working to in fact enhance it. We are increasing the scope of activities that could result in debarment from contracts with the government with our enhanced integrity regime. We are looking at putting in place a stronger integrity regime that definitely will benefit Canadians and make sure that Canadians' money is spent with integrity.
I cannot blame her, Mr. Speaker. I would not want to answer my questions either. I have one question, which is very simple. I would like to know if between September 4 and October 10 the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Office, any cabinet minister, any lobbyist or anyone associated with the Prime Minister's Office indicated to SNC-Lavalin or gave assurances that it would be able to get a deferred public
Mr. Speaker, I am going to break it down super simple. On September 4, the director of public prosecutions told SNC-Lavalin that there would be no agreement coming its way. They did not report it, and they did not think it was real until October, but miraculously, there were copious meetings between SNC-Lavalin lobbyists and the Prime Minister's Office and the Clerk of the Privy Council,So let us try this again. Who told them that they were going to be able to get out of going to court?
Mr. Speaker, it is the practice of the government to put in place administrative agreements with companies while criminal proceedings are under way. This administrative agreement will terminate if there is a criminal conviction. In the meantime, we cannot comment on any ongoing court cases.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is pursuing what is an absolutely improper line of questioning. The fact of the matter is that the RCMP is independent and should not be dragged into controversies on the floor of the House of Commons. It enforces the laws of Canada and does it at its own volition and discretion, and that is the way it should be in a free and open democracy.
Mr. Speaker, that is one of the many members who was denying that members of the justice committee could do their work and would be able to meet. Today, that committee is meeting. The member and his party as well as the Conservatives said the justice committee would not be calling forward witnesses. Witnesses are appearing. They are answering questions. The member and his party as well as the Conservatives said the former attorney general would not be invited to speak. Members of the justice committee invited her to speak. She will be speaking. They need to stop undermining the work of committees and start respecting our institutions so that Canadians know that they can as well.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives will continue to speculate. We know that is their approach. It was their approach for 10 years under Stephen Harper, and unfortunately that remains the case today.Canadians are paying attention. They have not forgotten the rule book that the Conservatives released so that they could undermine and destroy committees. We on this side increased resources to committees, so that committees could do their important work.What was confirmed by the justice committee is that when the Clerk of the Privy Council appeared at committee to answer questions, he said, 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.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the year, when the Prime Minister fired the former attorney general of Canada, she wrote a letter that spoke volumes. She wrote that it was vital to maintain a separation between the criminal justice system and politics. However, that is the exact problem at the heart of the Liberal scandal that has been rattling our country for the past three weeks.We know that, on September 4, the director of public prosecutions said that she would be moving forward with the case against SNC-Lavalin.I have a perfectly simple question. Did cabinet discuss this matter, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, after eight years in this place, I thought that nothing could surprise me, but the Liberals can.The National Energy Board said in its report that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion does not respect indigenous rights, that it constitutes a danger to our environment and that it will affect an endangered species. However, the Liberals are going to move forward with the project anyway, on the pretext that it is in the national interest.Are we to understand that the Liberals believe that protecting our environment and respecting first nations is not in the national interest?
Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed that, at every opportunity, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was a decision for the minister of justice to take. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that, in each and every case, prosecutors 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.What is clear is that the Conservatives are saying one thing in French and something else in English. They should stop doing that.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected our government because of our plan to grow the economy and protect the environment. That is exactly what we are doing with a $1.5-billion investment in our oceans protection plan. We are also following the recommendations made by the Federal Court of Appeal concerning the progress of TMX. If it were up to the NDP, there would be no new investments in the natural resources sector. Fortunately, it is up to Canadians, who elected a government to grow the economy and protect the environment.
Mr. Speaker, in the SNC-Lavalin affair, the government claims that it is protecting jobs. The Minister of Transport keeps repeating that safety is his top priority.Meanwhile, Aéroports de Montréal, the Montreal airport authority, is raking in record profits while asking its employees to take a significant pay cut under the threat of contracting the work out. If that is not a hint of an intention to privatize, I do not know what is. Will the minister promise that these jobs, such as those related to safety certification, will not be contracted out on the cheap?
Mr. Speaker, with something as important as a national pharmacare program, this side of the House wants to get it done right, and that is why we are doing our homework. I am very pleased that we have put together an advisory council on the implementation of a national pharmacare program. We have six Canadian experts who are looking at this matter and having conversations with Canadians. I look forward to receiving the report later this spring to meet the needs of all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Liberals' cover-up on this SNC-Lavalin scandal is that they are having trouble keeping their stories straight.The Clerk of the Privy Council testified last week that there was no discussion of the special deal for SNC-Lavalin at cabinet, but the Minister of National Revenue went on the radio and said that the SNC-Lavalin deal was discussed at cabinet. Only one of these people can be telling the truth. Which one of them is it?
Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on improving the quality, the coverage, and most importantly, the price of telecommunication services for Canadians no matter where they live. Can the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development speak to the latest step our government is taking to ensure Canadian consumers have the quality services they deserve at affordable prices?
Mr. Speaker, everyone in Canada deserves a safe, affordable place to call home, but the housing crisis is leaving many of us out in the cold. People need solutions now, not years from now. That is why Burnaby South elected Jagmeet Singh, a leader who understands the urgency of the housing crisis, unlike the Liberals, who fail to act. Canadians cannot wait any longer. Why are the Liberals so quick on their feet when their rich corporate friends need something, yet refuse to ensure safe, affordable housing for those who desperately need it now?
Mr. Speaker, somebody is going to have to answer this question, because on September 4, the director of public prosecutions actually informed SNC-Lavalin that it would not be receiving a deferred public prosecution agreement. However, the audited financial statements of SNC-Lavalin indicate that the company was advised by the director of PPSC in October 2018 that it would not be invited by the PPSC. Who in the Prime Minister's Office gave the assurance between September 4 and October 10 that there would not be a problem with the PPSC?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the justice committee, retired judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond testified that public officials must be able to point to lawful authority for their actions. What lawful authority did the Prime Minister have to conspire to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with bribery? What lawful authority?
Mr. Speaker, I asked a very simple and perfectly legitimate question. Did a cabinet minister, the Prime Minister's Office or anyone from the Prime Minister's inner circle tell SNC-Lavalin that it could avoid a criminal trial for the matter we are now all aware of that was brought to light over three weeks ago?Why is the Prime Minister refusing to explain his actions to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights?
Mr. Speaker, I feel like the hon. House leader is being paid by the word today.I would say this. I have very few words on this matter. What I would like to know is this.I am sorry. I cannot
Mr. Speaker, once again, it is not surprising that the Conservatives will undermine the work of committees. Once again, it is not surprising that the Conservatives will undermine the work of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. They did it for 10 years under Stephen Harper. Today they have chosen a new leader, but it still remains the same party as Stephen Harper's. Canadians can have confidence in their institutions. We on this side will let them do their work. They are meeting. They are calling forward witnesses. Witnesses are appearing and answering those tough questions. Members from both sides are present.
Mr. Speaker, we know that cannot be their motivation. We know that because when they wrote the law they specifically excluded the national economic interest. They wrote the law and then tried to get the former attorney general to break the law. She said no. Apparently people in the Prime Minister's Office would not take no for an answer. Why would the Prime Minister not accept the decision of the independent prosecutor of Canada?
Mr. Speaker, over 350 delegates from the Canadian Labour Congress are in Ottawa today to talk about pension security and pharmacare. They echoed similar concerns brought by the coalition of retiree organizations last week in Ottawa. It is clear that workers and retirees want the Liberals to finally take action to provide real pension security for seniors and to introduce a fully universal pharmacare program. Canadians are no longer buying the empty promises. They want solutions now. Are the Liberals listening? When will they finally take action?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Mississauga EastCooksville for championing affordability issues. As he has highlighted, our government has recently announced a policy directive requiring the CRTC to look at competition, affordability, consumer interests and innovation, because wireless data plans are up to 32% cheaper than the national average in regions with strong competition. We are promoting more competition and more choice so that Canadians can have more affordable plans.
Mr. Speaker, they will continue to speculate, but we, on this side of the House, are interested in the facts.The leader of the Conservative Party met with the company, as did the leader of the NDP. The Conservative deputy leader said in committee that she did not want to give the impression or go on the record as saying that there was anything wrong with meeting with SNC-Lavalin.We, on this side of the House, respect the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We respect the work of all committees. That is exactly why we increased resources to committees. We will not take the Conservative approach.
Mr. Speaker, once again let us look at the record. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan considerations. 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 former minister of justice to take.We on this side have lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians so that we could increase them on the wealthiest 1%. The NDP said no to that measure.We on this side brought in the Canada child benefit. Today, Stats Canada confirmed that 278,000 kids have been lifted out of poverty and over 800,000 Canadians. The NDP
Mr. Speaker, again it certainly feels like the Liberals are not in the business of answering the question. The question is quite simple and Canadians deserve to know. There is a crisis in the rule of law. This is not politics as usual. This is serious and Canadians know there is a deeper scandal.Again, has any current or former cabinet minister or Liberal staffer been contacted by the RCMP over the SNC-Lavalin affair or anything else pertaining to the former attorney general's portfolio, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, the court provided us with a clear path to move this project forward in the right way, and that is what we are delivering. The member for SkeenaBulkley Valley, a supporter of the LNG Canada project that will go through his riding and create 10,000 good jobs, seems to pick and choose the pipelines he supports. The members of the NDP caucus seem to think they can pick and choose which court rulings they listen to. We know how important this process is to Canadians. We are working each day to get it right.
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Safety and it is a very direct question.Has any staff member or any minister been contacted by the RCMP with respect to the SNC-Lavalin investigation? The answer is simple: yes or no.
Mr. Speaker, as members of the House should know, the RCMP is totally independent. It never consults the Minister of Public Safety with respect to whether to launch or pursue an investigation, and that is exactly how it should be in a free and open democracy like ours.
Mr. Speaker, people across the country are struggling to afford their medications and struggling to make ends meet. Instead of helping these people, the Liberal government continues to tell them that they must wait.Unions are in Ottawa this week to urge the government to work on creating a universal pharmacare program that is fully funded for everyone. People clearly need a single-payer universal pharmacare system that provides equal coverage to everyone. When will this government take action?
Mr. Speaker, that member has definitely demonstrated where the priorities of the Conservatives are at.We on this side have respect for committees. We have respect for the independence of the judicial system. We have respect for officers of Parliament.We on this side lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians by increasing them on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians. Conservatives voted against it.We on this side introduced the Canada child benefit, a tax-free benefit. Today, Statistics Canada has confirmed 278,000 kids have been lifted out of poverty. Over 800,000 Canadians are benefiting from this program. Conservatives voted against it. Our focus will always be on Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, as I replied in my last answer, we are not aware of any such activity in relation to the RCMP and neither should we be, because the RCMP is completely independent.
Mr. Speaker, once again, the leader of the NDP met with SNC-Lavalin representatives. The leader of the Conservatives met with them also. The leaders of both parties met with them. Everyone knows this, and the leaders are not hiding it.We know that the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are doing their job. We, on this side of the House, firmly believe that they will do their job and ask questions, and that the witnesses will be able to respond.
Mr. Speaker, our government works to ensure the highest ethical standards for government procurement and effectively addressing wrongdoing. We have developed and are implementing a stronger integrity regime that holds companies accountable. PSPC has entered into an administrative agreement with this company while criminal proceedings are under way. This agreement permits the company to contract with the government while meeting strict corporate compliance conditions, ensuring strong oversight while protecting innocent third parties, like pensioners and employees, from financial harm.
Mr. Speaker, the illegal trip to the Aga Khan's billionaire island, the lucrative clam fishing contract directly awarded to an in-law, investigations on shady land deals in Brampton, four groping scandals, including the feminist Prime Minister himself, and now obstructing justice to prevent the rich executives accused of bribing the Gadhafi regime from facing a trial. Enough is enough.Why are there two sets of rules: one that benefits the Prime Minister and his cronies, and one that hurts everyone else?
Mr. Speaker, in 2010, the MP for Papineau gave his support to a campaign for the establishment of a United Nations parliament that would have power to adopt binding regulations on Canada. His government has been imposing UN recommendations on Canada on issues such as climate change and migration.Is the government planning to turn our country into a post-national subdivision of the UN or is it going to stand up for Canada as a sovereign nation deciding its own future?
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have confidence in our institutions and in the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The clerk confirmed that, at every opportunity, the Prime Minister clearly stated that this was a decision for the justice minister to take.Interestingly, the member opposite himself said he did not intend to harm SNC-Lavalin employees, but, in English, the member for Carleton said he wanted to shut down the company and was not afraid to say so. They need to be clear with the
Mr. Speaker, the member continues to speculate rather than look at the facts. Let us look at the record so that Canadians can be reassured that they can have confidence in their institutions. 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. Last week, 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, the Prime Minister said it was a decision
Mr. Speaker, the justice official backgrounder on remediation agreements states two of the main purposes for remediation agreements: one, to hold the organization accountable for wrongdoing; and, two, to reduce the harm a criminal conviction of an organization could have for employees, pensioners, shareholders and other third parties who did not take part in the offence.The record shows that the leader of the Conservative Party met with the company. We know that the leader of the NDP met with the company. We know the deputy leader herself said on the record that she disagreed that there is anything wrong with meeting the company.We on this side will focus on Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we do not believe in conspiracy theories; we go with facts. The UN global compact on migration is a framework agreement that allows countries to work together on issues such as foreign credentials recognition, which is a benefit for Canada. In fact, a lot of the measures in the agreement are actually other countries catching up to what Canada is already succeeding at. We will never apologize for being the world leader in settlement and integration of newcomers. Why? Because it is in our economic interests. It is the right thing to do, but it is also the smart thing to do. We are leading the world in talent attraction and investment, because investment follows talent.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons often talks about what is happening at the justice committee.In fact, yesterday afternoon, retired judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond testified that all public officials must be able to point to lawful authority for their actions.In light of this, could the Prime Minister, who refuses to appear in committee, tell us whether he attempted to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with corruption, without regard for lawful authority?
Mr. Speaker, clearly, the NDP and Conservative members are sharing talking points, but 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 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.
Mr. Speaker, there is a world of difference between one meeting and 50 meetings. Here is what we know. The director of public prosecutions formally rejected a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin on September 4. Two weeks later, on September 17, the Prime Minister met with the former justice minister to discuss the matter. The day after that meeting, SNC-Lavalin lobbyists managed to get four meetings with senior officials and ministers. Would the Minister of Finance or the Minister of International Trade Diversification, who each took one of those meetings, be willing to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to explain what those conversations were about?
Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes how important science is in Canada. We rely on science every day for clean air and water, to improve health care for Canadians and to contribute to exciting new breakthroughs that help prepare us for the jobs and economy of tomorrow.We also know that when we invest in women, we strengthen our economy for everyone.Could the Minister of Science and Sport tell the House how we are increasing inclusion at our universities?
Mr. Speaker, the government is continually trying to find new ways to justify the political interference in an ongoing court case by the Prime Minister and his key advisers. The law on this is actually very clear. If an organization, like SNC-Lavalin, is charged with bribery, then the law states, the prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest.The former attorney general made her decision. She said no, so why did the Prime Minister not take no for an answer?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his work on the pension security file.Our government takes pension security for seniors very seriously. It is our government that, after decades, has invested the time, energy and effort to get this right. That was included in the budget as well as my mandate letter. As a result of that, we have had consultations. We have had over 4,000 submissions. We want to have an evidence-based solution and ensure pensioners do not suffer unintended consequences. We are working hard and we are going to get this right.
Mr. Speaker, once again I will reassure Canadians that they can trust their institutions. We will share, once again, what happened at the justice committee last week.When it was asked if it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials to discuss the matter with the Attorney General, the Attorney General confirmed that those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.When asked about conversations about cabinet colleagues in his role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General and whether they were appropriate, the Attorney General answered, Absolutely.We have always and we will always have confidence in our institutions, and Canadians can as well.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the member opposite for raising this very important question of the housing crisis that exists in many parts of Canada.That is because for too many years the federal government was not a leader and was not a partner in housing. That has changed. Since 2016 we have invested an additional $5.7 billion and have helped a million families. Last year, we launched the historic, first-ever national housing strategy, which is going to transform housing. We look forward to working with provinces and territories.
Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that, even though the legislation exists, there are ongoing court cases, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment.
Mr. Speaker, instead of respecting the former attorney general and the independence of her office, the Prime Minister launched a concerted campaign to change her mind, a concerted campaign to interfere with the independence of the office of the Attorney General. What lawful authority did he have to do that?
Again, Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record. 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.Last week, the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there is no direct communication, in any specific case, between the PMO and the DPP.The Clerk of the Privy Council also 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.We on this side will not undermine the work of committees or the commissioner, like the Conservatives
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kenora for his tireless work on behalf of his constituents. He knows that for this government, safety is our top priority. That is why I was delighted to join him at the airport in the community of Red Lake to highlight the new de-icing equipment and the new, improved runway lighting that is going to make the airport even safer. It is important for local residents, for tourists and for the local businesses that we will always put safety in front of everything at our regional airports.
Mr. Speaker, I am really happy to get up and talk about the fact that since we were elected we have created 800,000 great paying jobs. This year, we are transforming the youth employment strategy to make sure that more young people have opportunities to succeed in the workplace. We are ensuring that every young person who wants an opportunity to apply for a summer job has that opportunity. Seventy thousand young people across the country will benefit from this.
Mr. Speaker, the director of public prosecutions has confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently.On this side of the House, the government has done its job properly and has followed all the rules and laws. We stand up for the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law. We know that this case was extensively discussed by the Premier of Quebec and many other individuals, including MPs. The case is currently before the Ethics Commissioner and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.We can absolutely stand up for the workers, suppliers and retirees of a company like SNC-Lavalin while at the same time complying with ethics rules and all of the other legal rules surrounding these discussions.On this side of the House, we always stand up for workers in Quebec and across the country and for suppliers and retirees. That is what we are doing on this side of the House. We would like the opposition to talk about standing up for workers too from time to time.
Mr. Speaker, constant snow and ice buildup on runways can sometimes present a challenge for pilots in landing safely at regional airports. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in the Kenora riding, there are 22 airports of this kind. My constituents rely on Red Lake Municipal Airport to support our local economy and to maintain social well-being within our community. Can the minister please inform my constituents about what is being done to help local airports address their safety concerns?
Most negative speeches
Mr. Speaker, it is the practice of the government to put in place administrative agreements with companies while criminal proceedings are under way. This administrative agreement will terminate if there is a criminal conviction. In the meantime, we cannot comment on any ongoing court cases.
Mr. Speaker, I feel like the hon. House leader is being paid by the word today.I would say this. I have very few words on this matter. What I would like to know is this.I am sorry. I cannot
Mr. Speaker, SNC-Lavalin just lost $1.6 billion. In real terms, this amount represents jobs lost in Quebec. What is the opposition talking about? It is talking about the Prime Minister and his bad relationship with the former minister of justice. What is the opposition talking about? It is talking about the Prime Minister and his bad relationships. What is the Prime Minister talking about? He is talking about who he can blame for his fiasco. The real issue is getting lost. Without a remediation agreement, Quebec will lose a head office and thousands of jobs.When will the Minister of Justice sign a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin?
Mr. Speaker, the justice official backgrounder on remediation agreements states two of the main purposes for remediation agreements: one, to hold the organization accountable for wrongdoing; and, two, to reduce the harm a criminal conviction of an organization could have for employees, pensioners, shareholders and other third parties who did not take part in the offence.The record shows that the leader of the Conservative Party met with the company. We know that the leader of the NDP met with the company. We know the deputy leader herself said on the record that she disagreed that there is anything wrong with meeting the company.We on this side will focus on Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, that was not the question that was asked. Canadians deserve an answer to this very simple question. Has the RCMP contacted the PMO or the Prime Minister about this alleged interference in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin?
Mr. Speaker, once again, it is not surprising that the Conservatives will undermine the work of committees. Once again, it is not surprising that the Conservatives will undermine the work of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. They did it for 10 years under Stephen Harper. Today they have chosen a new leader, but it still remains the same party as Stephen Harper's. Canadians can have confidence in their institutions. We on this side will let them do their work. They are meeting. They are calling forward witnesses. Witnesses are appearing and answering those tough questions. Members from both sides are present.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that if he had allowed SNC-Lavalin to face criminal conviction, the company would go out of business, because corporate criminals are banned from federal contracts. But wait; in December 2015, the government gave SNC a deal exempting it from the ban, despite criminal charges. Now the government is changing the policy to exempt SNC even if it is convicted. If the Prime Minister plans to allow SNC to get contracts, even after a conviction, why did he need to intervene to stop the company from going to trial in the first place?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know the truth about the SNC-Lavalin case.However, yesterday, the Prime Minister and the Liberal members refused the request for the Prime Minister to testify before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.Will he answer a simple question? Did anyone in the PMO or any of the ministers close to him assure SNC-Lavalin that there would not be a criminal trial, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, once again, we on this side will always respect the work of committees. We on this side will always respect the independent judicial system. We on this side will always respect the independence of officers of Parliament. We on this side will always protect Canadian jobs and stand up for them. We know our plan is working, and that is why Canadians have created over 800,000 jobs since we took office. What is the record of the Conservatives? They had the least amount of growth, the worst growth since the Great Depression. Now we know why. Because they will not stand up for Canadian jobs.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the justice committee, a former judge testified that the RCMP integrity unit should thoroughly examine the Prime Minister's alleged interference with SNC-Lavalin's criminal trial. I have a simple question. Has the Prime Minister or anyone in the PMO been contacted by the RCMP?
Mr. Speaker, she is not going to get her honorary set of gold SNC cufflinks with excuses like that, because we are talking about illegal interventions by the Prime Minister's Office. The Prime Minister and the clerk met with the former justice minister on September 17. She said no. The PMO official met her on December 5. She said no. The PMO staff met with her staff on December 18. They said no. Then the Clerk of the Privy Council met with her on December 19. She said no and was removed from her position soon after.In the interest of corruption, I ask the Prime Minister this. When does no mean no for the Liberal Party?
Mr. Speaker, in Canada, we have the rule of law. In Canada, we have a system that works. Canadians can have confidence in that system. Members from both sides of the aisle sit on the justice committee. The member who asked the question is actually a member of the justice committee. He knows very well that when witnesses appear who have been asked to appear, witnesses are answering questions. We on this side have confidence in the work of the justice committee. It is really too bad that the member and his party do not.
Mr. Speaker, again, she is saying things that just are not true. We know they tried to interfere with an independent legal officer. They tried to get the former attorney general to change her mind. She said no. She said no on multiple occasions. In her view, and the view of the independent Crown prosecutor, SNC-Lavalin, based on serious corruption and bribery charges, did not qualify for one of these deals the way the Liberals themselves wrote it. Now they are trying to hide behind crocodile tears that no one is believing.Here is a very specific question for the House leader. Did anyone in the Liberal government communicate to SNC-Lavalin
Mr. Speaker, the illegal trip to the Aga Khan's billionaire island, the lucrative clam fishing contract directly awarded to an in-law, investigations on shady land deals in Brampton, four groping scandals, including the feminist Prime Minister himself, and now obstructing justice to prevent the rich executives accused of bribing the Gadhafi regime from facing a trial. Enough is enough.Why are there two sets of rules: one that benefits the Prime Minister and his cronies, and one that hurts everyone else?
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Conservatives has just confirmed that there are two ongoing court cases. We on this side take seriously the responsibility of standing up for jobs and growing the economy. The justice official backgrounder on remediation agreements states that two of the main purposes for remediation agreements are, one, to hold the organization accountable for wrongdoing and, two, to reduce the harm that a criminal conviction of an organization could have for employees, pensioners, stakeholders and other third parties who did not take part in the offence. We will always protect Canadian jobs. That is what we do on this side.
Mr. Speaker, again it certainly feels like the Liberals are not in the business of answering the question. The question is quite simple and Canadians deserve to know. There is a crisis in the rule of law. This is not politics as usual. This is serious and Canadians know there is a deeper scandal.Again, has any current or former cabinet minister or Liberal staffer been contacted by the RCMP over the SNC-Lavalin affair or anything else pertaining to the former attorney general's portfolio, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his work on the pension security file.Our government takes pension security for seniors very seriously. It is our government that, after decades, has invested the time, energy and effort to get this right. That was included in the budget as well as my mandate letter. As a result of that, we have had consultations. We have had over 4,000 submissions. We want to have an evidence-based solution and ensure pensioners do not suffer unintended consequences. We are working hard and we are going to get this right.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the year, when the Prime Minister fired the former attorney general of Canada, she wrote a letter that spoke volumes. She wrote that it was vital to maintain a separation between the criminal justice system and politics. However, that is the exact problem at the heart of the Liberal scandal that has been rattling our country for the past three weeks.We know that, on September 4, the director of public prosecutions said that she would be moving forward with the case against SNC-Lavalin.I have a perfectly simple question. Did cabinet discuss this matter, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, as I replied in my last answer, we are not aware of any such activity in relation to the RCMP and neither should we be, because the RCMP is completely independent.
Mr. Speaker, the government is working now on changing the policy so that the company could get an administrative agreement even after conviction. In other words, it did not need to go about blocking the prosecution to achieve that goal. If it was not to protect the workers or the pensioners or any other innocent party, who does it leave that the government was actually protecting? Is it not clear that this company, which gave over $100,000 in illegal donations to the Liberal Party, is the real organization these Liberals are trying to protect?
Mr. Speaker, that line is getting old.One thing is for sure: the committee is ready, but the Prime Minister has refused to testify. We also know the Prime Minister and his team pressured the former attorney general to halt criminal proceedings against SNC-Lavalin.They did not see eye to eye on that, so what did the Prime Minister do? He gave her the boot.Now Canadians know that their self-styled feminist, transparent government is nothing but a joke.Once again, by what lawful authority did the Prime Minister attempt to halt criminal proceedings against SNC-Lavalin?
Mr. Speaker, they will continue to speculate, but we, on this side of the House, are interested in the facts.The leader of the Conservative Party met with the company, as did the leader of the NDP. The Conservative deputy leader said in committee that she did not want to give the impression or go on the record as saying that there was anything wrong with meeting with SNC-Lavalin.We, on this side of the House, respect the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We respect the work of all committees. That is exactly why we increased resources to committees. We will not take the Conservative approach.
Mr. Speaker, somebody is going to have to answer this question, because on September 4, the director of public prosecutions actually informed SNC-Lavalin that it would not be receiving a deferred public prosecution agreement. However, the audited financial statements of SNC-Lavalin indicate that the company was advised by the director of PPSC in October 2018 that it would not be invited by the PPSC. Who in the Prime Minister's Office gave the assurance between September 4 and October 10 that there would not be a problem with the PPSC?
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for this genius pipeline-owning Prime Minister, the one who handed over $4.5 billion to a Texas oil company after its pipeline was thrown out of court. Now he is looking to spend another $10 billion to $15 billion of our money. The National Energy Board admits that this pipeline will hammer the environment, hurt indigenous relations and further wreck our climate. Governing is about making choices, and the Liberals are actually weighing the choice between protecting an orca population, repairing indigenous relations and actually fixing our carbon emissions, or building their pipeline. Which one is it going to be?
Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that, even though the legislation exists, there are ongoing court cases, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the justice committee, retired judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond testified that public officials must be able to point to lawful authority for their actions. What lawful authority did the Prime Minister have to conspire to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with bribery? What lawful authority?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have no respect for committees. Those of us on this side of the House know that members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights have called witnesses to appear. The witnesses are appearing and answering questions from members on both sides.We know this matter is currently before the Commissioner of Ethics and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We on this side of the House respect the work of the commissioner and the committee. Clearly the Conservatives do not.
Mr. Speaker, instead of respecting the former attorney general and the independence of her office, the Prime Minister launched a concerted campaign to change her mind, a concerted campaign to interfere with the independence of the office of the Attorney General. What lawful authority did he have to do that?
Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Liberals' cover-up on this SNC-Lavalin scandal is that they are having trouble keeping their stories straight.The Clerk of the Privy Council testified last week that there was no discussion of the special deal for SNC-Lavalin at cabinet, but the Minister of National Revenue went on the radio and said that the SNC-Lavalin deal was discussed at cabinet. Only one of these people can be telling the truth. Which one of them is it?
Mr. Speaker, people across the country are struggling to afford their medications and struggling to make ends meet. Instead of helping these people, the Liberal government continues to tell them that they must wait.Unions are in Ottawa this week to urge the government to work on creating a universal pharmacare program that is fully funded for everyone. People clearly need a single-payer universal pharmacare system that provides equal coverage to everyone. When will this government take action?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives will continue to speculate. We know that is their approach. It was their approach for 10 years under Stephen Harper, and unfortunately that remains the case today.Canadians are paying attention. They have not forgotten the rule book that the Conservatives released so that they could undermine and destroy committees. We on this side increased resources to committees, so that committees could do their important work.What was confirmed by the justice committee is that when the Clerk of the Privy Council appeared at committee to answer questions, he said, 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.
Mr. Speaker, over 350 delegates from the Canadian Labour Congress are in Ottawa today to talk about pension security and pharmacare. They echoed similar concerns brought by the coalition of retiree organizations last week in Ottawa. It is clear that workers and retirees want the Liberals to finally take action to provide real pension security for seniors and to introduce a fully universal pharmacare program. Canadians are no longer buying the empty promises. They want solutions now. Are the Liberals listening? When will they finally take action?
Mr. Speaker, there is a world of difference between one meeting and 50 meetings. Here is what we know. The director of public prosecutions formally rejected a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin on September 4. Two weeks later, on September 17, the Prime Minister met with the former justice minister to discuss the matter. The day after that meeting, SNC-Lavalin lobbyists managed to get four meetings with senior officials and ministers. Would the Minister of Finance or the Minister of International Trade Diversification, who each took one of those meetings, be willing to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to explain what those conversations were about?
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Safety and it is a very direct question.Has any staff member or any minister been contacted by the RCMP with respect to the SNC-Lavalin investigation? The answer is simple: yes or no.
Mr. Speaker, we know that cannot be their motivation. We know that because when they wrote the law they specifically excluded the national economic interest. They wrote the law and then tried to get the former attorney general to break the law. She said no. Apparently people in the Prime Minister's Office would not take no for an answer. Why would the Prime Minister not accept the decision of the independent prosecutor of Canada?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday's letter from the former justice minister shows the extraordinary steps she has had to take to force the Prime Minister's hand to lift the legal gag order so she can speak truth to a parliamentary committee. However, she is not the only person we need to hear from in the SNC-Lavalin scandal. We notice that there were numerous attempts by the Prime Minister's staff to pressure her into intervening in an independent legal investigation after it was found out that SNC was not eligible and they used a manifestly illegal argument, which was the economic interest.In the interests of fairness, will the Prime Minister agree that Katie Telford and Gerry Butts and the rest of his staff will also testify in this hearing?
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record. 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. We on this side have increased resources to committees so that committees can do their work. Members from both sides sit on the justice committee. Justice committee members have come together to ask for witnesses to appear. Witnesses are appearing.I will remind the House and all Canadians what Canadians said no to. Canadians said no to the failed approach of austerity by the Conservatives, which their leader continues to fight for.
Mr. Speaker, everyone in Canada deserves a safe, affordable place to call home, but the housing crisis is leaving many of us out in the cold. People need solutions now, not years from now. That is why Burnaby South elected Jagmeet Singh, a leader who understands the urgency of the housing crisis, unlike the Liberals, who fail to act. Canadians cannot wait any longer. Why are the Liberals so quick on their feet when their rich corporate friends need something, yet refuse to ensure safe, affordable housing for those who desperately need it now?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.We can absolutely stand up for the workers, suppliers and retirees of a company like SNC-Lavalin while at the same time complying with ethics rules and all of the other legal rules surrounding these discussions.On this side of the House, we always stand up for workers in Quebec and across the country and for suppliers and retirees. That is what we are doing on this side of the House. We would like the opposition to talk about standing up for workers too from time to time.
Mr. Speaker, too many people skip the medicine they need because the prices are too high. All Canadians deserve coverage, but instead, the Liberals are cooking up a half-baked plan that leaves workers out. Do the Liberals not know that employer coverage is not what it used to be? Corporations have been rolling back benefits for working people, leaving them with not only less coverage but often with no coverage for the drugs they need. Canadians want a comprehensive, universal, single-payer pharmacare plan that covers everyone equally. Why are the Liberals refusing to listen?
Mr. Speaker, following the decision of the director of public prosecutions, there were three separate attempts to pressure the former attorney general. That pressure did not come from mere lackeys.First it was the Prime Minister, then his principal secretary, and finally Canada's top public servant. Those three individuals, the most powerful people in the Canadian government, put direct pressure on the former attorney general. The question is very simple, since we still have not had an answer.Was this matter discussed at cabinet, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, the government is continually trying to find new ways to justify the political interference in an ongoing court case by the Prime Minister and his key advisers. The law on this is actually very clear. If an organization, like SNC-Lavalin, is charged with bribery, then the law states, the prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest.The former attorney general made her decision. She said no, so why did the Prime Minister not take no for an answer?
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons often talks about what is happening at the justice committee.In fact, yesterday afternoon, retired judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond testified that all public officials must be able to point to lawful authority for their actions.In light of this, could the Prime Minister, who refuses to appear in committee, tell us whether he attempted to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with corruption, without regard for lawful authority?
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have confidence in our institutions and in the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The clerk confirmed that, at every opportunity, the Prime Minister clearly stated that this was a decision for the justice minister to take.Interestingly, the member opposite himself said he did not intend to harm SNC-Lavalin employees, but, in English, the member for Carleton said he wanted to shut down the company and was not afraid to say so. They need to be clear with the
Mr. Speaker, the director of public prosecutions has confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently.On this side of the House, the government has done its job properly and has followed all the rules and laws. We stand up for the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law. We know that this case was extensively discussed by the Premier of Quebec and many other individuals, including MPs. The case is currently before the Ethics Commissioner and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Mr. Speaker, in 2006, SNC-Lavalin illegally donated nearly $110,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada and its associations. Today, SNC-Lavalin needs help because it is in big trouble.The machinery was then set in motion. The company had more than 50 meetings with the government. Why?Over those two years, the company had 14 meetings with the Prime Minister's Office, or one meeting every two months. Why?The fact that the former justice minister will appear before the committee is something, and I look forward to hearing what she has to say. However, I would like to know why there were so many meetings with lobbyists.
Mr. Speaker, once again, the leader of the NDP met with SNC-Lavalin representatives. The leader of the Conservatives met with them also. The leaders of both parties met with them. Everyone knows this, and the leaders are not hiding it.We know that the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are doing their job. We, on this side of the House, firmly believe that they will do their job and ask questions, and that the witnesses will be able to respond.
Mr. Speaker, is that not an interesting admission? They now claim that they can sign a direct deal between the public works department and the company to protect pensioners and jobs. That was supposedly the justification for interrupting the criminal proceedings in the first place, so if they have the ability to do this without blocking the prosecution, there must be another motive for having tried to secure a deferred public prosecution agreement. Will the minister admit that they were just trying to protect their corporate cronies and not the jobs of the workers?
Mr. Speaker, as members of the House should know, the RCMP is totally independent. It never consults the Minister of Public Safety with respect to whether to launch or pursue an investigation, and that is exactly how it should be in a free and open democracy like ours.
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we do not believe in conspiracy theories; we go with facts. The UN global compact on migration is a framework agreement that allows countries to work together on issues such as foreign credentials recognition, which is a benefit for Canada. In fact, a lot of the measures in the agreement are actually other countries catching up to what Canada is already succeeding at. We will never apologize for being the world leader in settlement and integration of newcomers. Why? Because it is in our economic interests. It is the right thing to do, but it is also the smart thing to do. We are leading the world in talent attraction and investment, because investment follows talent.
Mr. Speaker, it was the Conservative government that put in place the integrity regime, and our government is working to in fact enhance it. We are increasing the scope of activities that could result in debarment from contracts with the government with our enhanced integrity regime. We are looking at putting in place a stronger integrity regime that definitely will benefit Canadians and make sure that Canadians' money is spent with integrity.
Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed that, at every opportunity, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was a decision for the minister of justice to take. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that, in each and every case, prosecutors 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.What is clear is that the Conservatives are saying one thing in French and something else in English. They should stop doing that.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected our government because of our plan to grow the economy and protect the environment. That is exactly what we are doing with a $1.5-billion investment in our oceans protection plan. We are also following the recommendations made by the Federal Court of Appeal concerning the progress of TMX. If it were up to the NDP, there would be no new investments in the natural resources sector. Fortunately, it is up to Canadians, who elected a government to grow the economy and protect the environment.
Mr. Speaker, constant snow and ice buildup on runways can sometimes present a challenge for pilots in landing safely at regional airports. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in the Kenora riding, there are 22 airports of this kind. My constituents rely on Red Lake Municipal Airport to support our local economy and to maintain social well-being within our community. Can the minister please inform my constituents about what is being done to help local airports address their safety concerns?
Mr. Speaker, our government understands that research excellence and equity go hand in hand, and with that I would like to acknowledge the extraordinary Professor Donna Strickland, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics. She is only the third woman in history to do so, the first one in 55 years.We have made changes to the Canada excellence research chairs and the Canada research chairs, and we will be bringing Athena SWAN to Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to break it down super simple. On September 4, the director of public prosecutions told SNC-Lavalin that there would be no agreement coming its way. They did not report it, and they did not think it was real until October, but miraculously, there were copious meetings between SNC-Lavalin lobbyists and the Prime Minister's Office and the Clerk of the Privy Council,So let us try this again. Who told them that they were going to be able to get out of going to court?
Again, Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record. 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.Last week, the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there is no direct communication, in any specific case, between the PMO and the DPP.The Clerk of the Privy Council also 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.We on this side will not undermine the work of committees or the commissioner, like the Conservatives
Mr. Speaker, the member continues to speculate rather than look at the facts. Let us look at the record so that Canadians can be reassured that they can have confidence in their institutions. 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. Last week, 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, the Prime Minister said it was a decision
Mr. Speaker, our government works to ensure the highest ethical standards for government procurement and effectively addressing wrongdoing. We have developed and are implementing a stronger integrity regime that holds companies accountable. PSPC has entered into an administrative agreement with this company while criminal proceedings are under way. This agreement permits the company to contract with the government while meeting strict corporate compliance conditions, ensuring strong oversight while protecting innocent third parties, like pensioners and employees, from financial harm.
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, the government, under the Prime Minister's leadership, increased resources to committees to help them do their work.We know that the MPs who sit on the Standing Committee on Justice, who come from both sides of the aisle, are doing their work. They are asking witnesses to appear, and the witnesses are appearing and answering questions.The striking thing is that this member claims to have no intention of hurting the employees of SNC-Lavalin. He says so himself. However, the member for Carleton says something quite different in English. He said
Mr. Speaker, the government is hiding the truth, two opposition parties could not care less about workers, and thousands of jobs are in jeopardy, but no one is doing a thing. Ottawa sure has its priorities straight.When will someone from this government realize that their inaction on the SNC-Lavalin matter could cost Quebec thousands of jobs?
Mr. Speaker, clearly, the NDP and Conservative members are sharing talking points, but 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 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.
Mr. Speaker, I asked a very simple and perfectly legitimate question. Did a cabinet minister, the Prime Minister's Office or anyone from the Prime Minister's inner circle tell SNC-Lavalin that it could avoid a criminal trial for the matter we are now all aware of that was brought to light over three weeks ago?Why is the Prime Minister refusing to explain his actions to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights?
Mr. Speaker, once again let us look at the record. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan considerations. 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 former minister of justice to take.We on this side have lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians so that we could increase them on the wealthiest 1%. The NDP said no to that measure.We on this side brought in the Canada child benefit. Today, Stats Canada confirmed that 278,000 kids have been lifted out of poverty and over 800,000 Canadians. The NDP
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have confidence in their institutions. They have lost confidence in the Liberal government.It was the Clerk of the Privy Council who made it very clear that the SNC-Lavalin special deal was never discussed at cabinet, yet the Prime Minister refused to answer direct questions on this matter, citing cabinet confidence.Either the Prime Minister was misleading Canadians, or the Clerk of the Privy Council was misleading Canadians. Which one of them was misleading Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, once again I will reassure Canadians that they can trust their institutions. We will share, once again, what happened at the justice committee last week.When it was asked if it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials to discuss the matter with the Attorney General, the Attorney General confirmed that those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.When asked about conversations about cabinet colleagues in his role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General and whether they were appropriate, the Attorney General answered, Absolutely.We have always and we will always have confidence in our institutions, and Canadians can as well.
Mr. Speaker, that member has definitely demonstrated where the priorities of the Conservatives are at.We on this side have respect for committees. We have respect for the independence of the judicial system. We have respect for officers of Parliament.We on this side lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians by increasing them on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians. Conservatives voted against it.We on this side introduced the Canada child benefit, a tax-free benefit. Today, Statistics Canada has confirmed 278,000 kids have been lifted out of poverty. Over 800,000 Canadians are benefiting from this program. Conservatives voted against it. Our focus will always be on Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, in 2010, the MP for Papineau gave his support to a campaign for the establishment of a United Nations parliament that would have power to adopt binding regulations on Canada. His government has been imposing UN recommendations on Canada on issues such as climate change and migration.Is the government planning to turn our country into a post-national subdivision of the UN or is it going to stand up for Canada as a sovereign nation deciding its own future?
Mr. Speaker, unlike the New Democratic Party, we on this side of the House do our homework.We want to make sure that we develop a pharmacare plan that will meet the needs of all Canadians. We created the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare to do just that.I look forward to seeing the council's recommendations. We will receive its report later this year.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kenora for his tireless work on behalf of his constituents. He knows that for this government, safety is our top priority. That is why I was delighted to join him at the airport in the community of Red Lake to highlight the new de-icing equipment and the new, improved runway lighting that is going to make the airport even safer. It is important for local residents, for tourists and for the local businesses that we will always put safety in front of everything at our regional airports.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is pursuing what is an absolutely improper line of questioning. The fact of the matter is that the RCMP is independent and should not be dragged into controversies on the floor of the House of Commons. It enforces the laws of Canada and does it at its own volition and discretion, and that is the way it should be in a free and open democracy.
I cannot blame her, Mr. Speaker. I would not want to answer my questions either. I have one question, which is very simple. I would like to know if between September 4 and October 10 the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Office, any cabinet minister, any lobbyist or anyone associated with the Prime Minister's Office indicated to SNC-Lavalin or gave assurances that it would be able to get a deferred public
Mr. Speaker, after eight years in this place, I thought that nothing could surprise me, but the Liberals can.The National Energy Board said in its report that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion does not respect indigenous rights, that it constitutes a danger to our environment and that it will affect an endangered species. However, the Liberals are going to move forward with the project anyway, on the pretext that it is in the national interest.Are we to understand that the Liberals believe that protecting our environment and respecting first nations is not in the national interest?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the member opposite for raising this very important question of the housing crisis that exists in many parts of Canada.That is because for too many years the federal government was not a leader and was not a partner in housing. That has changed. Since 2016 we have invested an additional $5.7 billion and have helped a million families. Last year, we launched the historic, first-ever national housing strategy, which is going to transform housing. We look forward to working with provinces and territories.
Mr. Speaker, in the SNC-Lavalin affair, the government claims that it is protecting jobs. The Minister of Transport keeps repeating that safety is his top priority.Meanwhile, Aéroports de Montréal, the Montreal airport authority, is raking in record profits while asking its employees to take a significant pay cut under the threat of contracting the work out. If that is not a hint of an intention to privatize, I do not know what is. Will the minister promise that these jobs, such as those related to safety certification, will not be contracted out on the cheap?
Mr. Speaker, that is one of the many members who was denying that members of the justice committee could do their work and would be able to meet. Today, that committee is meeting. The member and his party as well as the Conservatives said the justice committee would not be calling forward witnesses. Witnesses are appearing. They are answering questions. The member and his party as well as the Conservatives said the former attorney general would not be invited to speak. Members of the justice committee invited her to speak. She will be speaking. They need to stop undermining the work of committees and start respecting our institutions so that Canadians know that they can as well.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Mississauga EastCooksville for championing affordability issues. As he has highlighted, our government has recently announced a policy directive requiring the CRTC to look at competition, affordability, consumer interests and innovation, because wireless data plans are up to 32% cheaper than the national average in regions with strong competition. We are promoting more competition and more choice so that Canadians can have more affordable plans.
Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes how important science is in Canada. We rely on science every day for clean air and water, to improve health care for Canadians and to contribute to exciting new breakthroughs that help prepare us for the jobs and economy of tomorrow.We also know that when we invest in women, we strengthen our economy for everyone.Could the Minister of Science and Sport tell the House how we are increasing inclusion at our universities?
Mr. Speaker, with something as important as a national pharmacare program, this side of the House wants to get it done right, and that is why we are doing our homework. I am very pleased that we have put together an advisory council on the implementation of a national pharmacare program. We have six Canadian experts who are looking at this matter and having conversations with Canadians. I look forward to receiving the report later this spring to meet the needs of all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely not aware of any activity in relation to the RCMP, neither should we be. The RCMP is completely independent and it will pursue whatever matters it deems appropriate to pursue. For the opposition to attempt to politicize the situation is absolutely improper and contrary to the best interests of law enforcement in this country.
Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on improving the quality, the coverage, and most importantly, the price of telecommunication services for Canadians no matter where they live. Can the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development speak to the latest step our government is taking to ensure Canadian consumers have the quality services they deserve at affordable prices?
Mr. Speaker, the court provided us with a clear path to move this project forward in the right way, and that is what we are delivering. The member for SkeenaBulkley Valley, a supporter of the LNG Canada project that will go through his riding and create 10,000 good jobs, seems to pick and choose the pipelines he supports. The members of the NDP caucus seem to think they can pick and choose which court rulings they listen to. We know how important this process is to Canadians. We are working each day to get it right.
Mr. Speaker, I am really happy to get up and talk about the fact that since we were elected we have created 800,000 great paying jobs. This year, we are transforming the youth employment strategy to make sure that more young people have opportunities to succeed in the workplace. We are ensuring that every young person who wants an opportunity to apply for a summer job has that opportunity. Seventy thousand young people across the country will benefit from this.
Mr. Speaker, it is the practice of the government to put in place administrative agreements with companies while criminal proceedings are under way. This administrative agreement will terminate if there is a criminal conviction. In the meantime, we cannot comment on any ongoing court cases.
Mr. Speaker, I feel like the hon. House leader is being paid by the word today.I would say this. I have very few words on this matter. What I would like to know is this.I am sorry. I cannot
Mr. Speaker, SNC-Lavalin just lost $1.6 billion. In real terms, this amount represents jobs lost in Quebec. What is the opposition talking about? It is talking about the Prime Minister and his bad relationship with the former minister of justice. What is the opposition talking about? It is talking about the Prime Minister and his bad relationships. What is the Prime Minister talking about? He is talking about who he can blame for his fiasco. The real issue is getting lost. Without a remediation agreement, Quebec will lose a head office and thousands of jobs.When will the Minister of Justice sign a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin?
Mr. Speaker, the justice official backgrounder on remediation agreements states two of the main purposes for remediation agreements: one, to hold the organization accountable for wrongdoing; and, two, to reduce the harm a criminal conviction of an organization could have for employees, pensioners, shareholders and other third parties who did not take part in the offence.The record shows that the leader of the Conservative Party met with the company. We know that the leader of the NDP met with the company. We know the deputy leader herself said on the record that she disagreed that there is anything wrong with meeting the company.We on this side will focus on Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, that was not the question that was asked. Canadians deserve an answer to this very simple question. Has the RCMP contacted the PMO or the Prime Minister about this alleged interference in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin?
Mr. Speaker, once again, it is not surprising that the Conservatives will undermine the work of committees. Once again, it is not surprising that the Conservatives will undermine the work of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. They did it for 10 years under Stephen Harper. Today they have chosen a new leader, but it still remains the same party as Stephen Harper's. Canadians can have confidence in their institutions. We on this side will let them do their work. They are meeting. They are calling forward witnesses. Witnesses are appearing and answering those tough questions. Members from both sides are present.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that if he had allowed SNC-Lavalin to face criminal conviction, the company would go out of business, because corporate criminals are banned from federal contracts. But wait; in December 2015, the government gave SNC a deal exempting it from the ban, despite criminal charges. Now the government is changing the policy to exempt SNC even if it is convicted. If the Prime Minister plans to allow SNC to get contracts, even after a conviction, why did he need to intervene to stop the company from going to trial in the first place?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know the truth about the SNC-Lavalin case.However, yesterday, the Prime Minister and the Liberal members refused the request for the Prime Minister to testify before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.Will he answer a simple question? Did anyone in the PMO or any of the ministers close to him assure SNC-Lavalin that there would not be a criminal trial, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, once again, we on this side will always respect the work of committees. We on this side will always respect the independent judicial system. We on this side will always respect the independence of officers of Parliament. We on this side will always protect Canadian jobs and stand up for them. We know our plan is working, and that is why Canadians have created over 800,000 jobs since we took office. What is the record of the Conservatives? They had the least amount of growth, the worst growth since the Great Depression. Now we know why. Because they will not stand up for Canadian jobs.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the justice committee, a former judge testified that the RCMP integrity unit should thoroughly examine the Prime Minister's alleged interference with SNC-Lavalin's criminal trial. I have a simple question. Has the Prime Minister or anyone in the PMO been contacted by the RCMP?
Mr. Speaker, she is not going to get her honorary set of gold SNC cufflinks with excuses like that, because we are talking about illegal interventions by the Prime Minister's Office. The Prime Minister and the clerk met with the former justice minister on September 17. She said no. The PMO official met her on December 5. She said no. The PMO staff met with her staff on December 18. They said no. Then the Clerk of the Privy Council met with her on December 19. She said no and was removed from her position soon after.In the interest of corruption, I ask the Prime Minister this. When does no mean no for the Liberal Party?
Mr. Speaker, in Canada, we have the rule of law. In Canada, we have a system that works. Canadians can have confidence in that system. Members from both sides of the aisle sit on the justice committee. The member who asked the question is actually a member of the justice committee. He knows very well that when witnesses appear who have been asked to appear, witnesses are answering questions. We on this side have confidence in the work of the justice committee. It is really too bad that the member and his party do not.
Mr. Speaker, again, she is saying things that just are not true. We know they tried to interfere with an independent legal officer. They tried to get the former attorney general to change her mind. She said no. She said no on multiple occasions. In her view, and the view of the independent Crown prosecutor, SNC-Lavalin, based on serious corruption and bribery charges, did not qualify for one of these deals the way the Liberals themselves wrote it. Now they are trying to hide behind crocodile tears that no one is believing.Here is a very specific question for the House leader. Did anyone in the Liberal government communicate to SNC-Lavalin
Mr. Speaker, the illegal trip to the Aga Khan's billionaire island, the lucrative clam fishing contract directly awarded to an in-law, investigations on shady land deals in Brampton, four groping scandals, including the feminist Prime Minister himself, and now obstructing justice to prevent the rich executives accused of bribing the Gadhafi regime from facing a trial. Enough is enough.Why are there two sets of rules: one that benefits the Prime Minister and his cronies, and one that hurts everyone else?
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Conservatives has just confirmed that there are two ongoing court cases. We on this side take seriously the responsibility of standing up for jobs and growing the economy. The justice official backgrounder on remediation agreements states that two of the main purposes for remediation agreements are, one, to hold the organization accountable for wrongdoing and, two, to reduce the harm that a criminal conviction of an organization could have for employees, pensioners, stakeholders and other third parties who did not take part in the offence. We will always protect Canadian jobs. That is what we do on this side.
Mr. Speaker, again it certainly feels like the Liberals are not in the business of answering the question. The question is quite simple and Canadians deserve to know. There is a crisis in the rule of law. This is not politics as usual. This is serious and Canadians know there is a deeper scandal.Again, has any current or former cabinet minister or Liberal staffer been contacted by the RCMP over the SNC-Lavalin affair or anything else pertaining to the former attorney general's portfolio, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his work on the pension security file.Our government takes pension security for seniors very seriously. It is our government that, after decades, has invested the time, energy and effort to get this right. That was included in the budget as well as my mandate letter. As a result of that, we have had consultations. We have had over 4,000 submissions. We want to have an evidence-based solution and ensure pensioners do not suffer unintended consequences. We are working hard and we are going to get this right.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the year, when the Prime Minister fired the former attorney general of Canada, she wrote a letter that spoke volumes. She wrote that it was vital to maintain a separation between the criminal justice system and politics. However, that is the exact problem at the heart of the Liberal scandal that has been rattling our country for the past three weeks.We know that, on September 4, the director of public prosecutions said that she would be moving forward with the case against SNC-Lavalin.I have a perfectly simple question. Did cabinet discuss this matter, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, as I replied in my last answer, we are not aware of any such activity in relation to the RCMP and neither should we be, because the RCMP is completely independent.
Mr. Speaker, the government is working now on changing the policy so that the company could get an administrative agreement even after conviction. In other words, it did not need to go about blocking the prosecution to achieve that goal. If it was not to protect the workers or the pensioners or any other innocent party, who does it leave that the government was actually protecting? Is it not clear that this company, which gave over $100,000 in illegal donations to the Liberal Party, is the real organization these Liberals are trying to protect?
Mr. Speaker, that line is getting old.One thing is for sure: the committee is ready, but the Prime Minister has refused to testify. We also know the Prime Minister and his team pressured the former attorney general to halt criminal proceedings against SNC-Lavalin.They did not see eye to eye on that, so what did the Prime Minister do? He gave her the boot.Now Canadians know that their self-styled feminist, transparent government is nothing but a joke.Once again, by what lawful authority did the Prime Minister attempt to halt criminal proceedings against SNC-Lavalin?
Mr. Speaker, they will continue to speculate, but we, on this side of the House, are interested in the facts.The leader of the Conservative Party met with the company, as did the leader of the NDP. The Conservative deputy leader said in committee that she did not want to give the impression or go on the record as saying that there was anything wrong with meeting with SNC-Lavalin.We, on this side of the House, respect the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We respect the work of all committees. That is exactly why we increased resources to committees. We will not take the Conservative approach.
Mr. Speaker, somebody is going to have to answer this question, because on September 4, the director of public prosecutions actually informed SNC-Lavalin that it would not be receiving a deferred public prosecution agreement. However, the audited financial statements of SNC-Lavalin indicate that the company was advised by the director of PPSC in October 2018 that it would not be invited by the PPSC. Who in the Prime Minister's Office gave the assurance between September 4 and October 10 that there would not be a problem with the PPSC?
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for this genius pipeline-owning Prime Minister, the one who handed over $4.5 billion to a Texas oil company after its pipeline was thrown out of court. Now he is looking to spend another $10 billion to $15 billion of our money. The National Energy Board admits that this pipeline will hammer the environment, hurt indigenous relations and further wreck our climate. Governing is about making choices, and the Liberals are actually weighing the choice between protecting an orca population, repairing indigenous relations and actually fixing our carbon emissions, or building their pipeline. Which one is it going to be?
Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that, even though the legislation exists, there are ongoing court cases, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the justice committee, retired judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond testified that public officials must be able to point to lawful authority for their actions. What lawful authority did the Prime Minister have to conspire to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with bribery? What lawful authority?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have no respect for committees. Those of us on this side of the House know that members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights have called witnesses to appear. The witnesses are appearing and answering questions from members on both sides.We know this matter is currently before the Commissioner of Ethics and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We on this side of the House respect the work of the commissioner and the committee. Clearly the Conservatives do not.
Mr. Speaker, instead of respecting the former attorney general and the independence of her office, the Prime Minister launched a concerted campaign to change her mind, a concerted campaign to interfere with the independence of the office of the Attorney General. What lawful authority did he have to do that?
Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Liberals' cover-up on this SNC-Lavalin scandal is that they are having trouble keeping their stories straight.The Clerk of the Privy Council testified last week that there was no discussion of the special deal for SNC-Lavalin at cabinet, but the Minister of National Revenue went on the radio and said that the SNC-Lavalin deal was discussed at cabinet. Only one of these people can be telling the truth. Which one of them is it?
Mr. Speaker, people across the country are struggling to afford their medications and struggling to make ends meet. Instead of helping these people, the Liberal government continues to tell them that they must wait.Unions are in Ottawa this week to urge the government to work on creating a universal pharmacare program that is fully funded for everyone. People clearly need a single-payer universal pharmacare system that provides equal coverage to everyone. When will this government take action?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives will continue to speculate. We know that is their approach. It was their approach for 10 years under Stephen Harper, and unfortunately that remains the case today.Canadians are paying attention. They have not forgotten the rule book that the Conservatives released so that they could undermine and destroy committees. We on this side increased resources to committees, so that committees could do their important work.What was confirmed by the justice committee is that when the Clerk of the Privy Council appeared at committee to answer questions, he said, 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.
Mr. Speaker, over 350 delegates from the Canadian Labour Congress are in Ottawa today to talk about pension security and pharmacare. They echoed similar concerns brought by the coalition of retiree organizations last week in Ottawa. It is clear that workers and retirees want the Liberals to finally take action to provide real pension security for seniors and to introduce a fully universal pharmacare program. Canadians are no longer buying the empty promises. They want solutions now. Are the Liberals listening? When will they finally take action?
Mr. Speaker, there is a world of difference between one meeting and 50 meetings. Here is what we know. The director of public prosecutions formally rejected a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin on September 4. Two weeks later, on September 17, the Prime Minister met with the former justice minister to discuss the matter. The day after that meeting, SNC-Lavalin lobbyists managed to get four meetings with senior officials and ministers. Would the Minister of Finance or the Minister of International Trade Diversification, who each took one of those meetings, be willing to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to explain what those conversations were about?
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Safety and it is a very direct question.Has any staff member or any minister been contacted by the RCMP with respect to the SNC-Lavalin investigation? The answer is simple: yes or no.
Mr. Speaker, we know that cannot be their motivation. We know that because when they wrote the law they specifically excluded the national economic interest. They wrote the law and then tried to get the former attorney general to break the law. She said no. Apparently people in the Prime Minister's Office would not take no for an answer. Why would the Prime Minister not accept the decision of the independent prosecutor of Canada?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday's letter from the former justice minister shows the extraordinary steps she has had to take to force the Prime Minister's hand to lift the legal gag order so she can speak truth to a parliamentary committee. However, she is not the only person we need to hear from in the SNC-Lavalin scandal. We notice that there were numerous attempts by the Prime Minister's staff to pressure her into intervening in an independent legal investigation after it was found out that SNC was not eligible and they used a manifestly illegal argument, which was the economic interest.In the interests of fairness, will the Prime Minister agree that Katie Telford and Gerry Butts and the rest of his staff will also testify in this hearing?
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record. 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. We on this side have increased resources to committees so that committees can do their work. Members from both sides sit on the justice committee. Justice committee members have come together to ask for witnesses to appear. Witnesses are appearing.I will remind the House and all Canadians what Canadians said no to. Canadians said no to the failed approach of austerity by the Conservatives, which their leader continues to fight for.
Mr. Speaker, everyone in Canada deserves a safe, affordable place to call home, but the housing crisis is leaving many of us out in the cold. People need solutions now, not years from now. That is why Burnaby South elected Jagmeet Singh, a leader who understands the urgency of the housing crisis, unlike the Liberals, who fail to act. Canadians cannot wait any longer. Why are the Liberals so quick on their feet when their rich corporate friends need something, yet refuse to ensure safe, affordable housing for those who desperately need it now?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.We can absolutely stand up for the workers, suppliers and retirees of a company like SNC-Lavalin while at the same time complying with ethics rules and all of the other legal rules surrounding these discussions.On this side of the House, we always stand up for workers in Quebec and across the country and for suppliers and retirees. That is what we are doing on this side of the House. We would like the opposition to talk about standing up for workers too from time to time.
Mr. Speaker, too many people skip the medicine they need because the prices are too high. All Canadians deserve coverage, but instead, the Liberals are cooking up a half-baked plan that leaves workers out. Do the Liberals not know that employer coverage is not what it used to be? Corporations have been rolling back benefits for working people, leaving them with not only less coverage but often with no coverage for the drugs they need. Canadians want a comprehensive, universal, single-payer pharmacare plan that covers everyone equally. Why are the Liberals refusing to listen?
Mr. Speaker, following the decision of the director of public prosecutions, there were three separate attempts to pressure the former attorney general. That pressure did not come from mere lackeys.First it was the Prime Minister, then his principal secretary, and finally Canada's top public servant. Those three individuals, the most powerful people in the Canadian government, put direct pressure on the former attorney general. The question is very simple, since we still have not had an answer.Was this matter discussed at cabinet, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, the government is continually trying to find new ways to justify the political interference in an ongoing court case by the Prime Minister and his key advisers. The law on this is actually very clear. If an organization, like SNC-Lavalin, is charged with bribery, then the law states, the prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest.The former attorney general made her decision. She said no, so why did the Prime Minister not take no for an answer?
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons often talks about what is happening at the justice committee.In fact, yesterday afternoon, retired judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond testified that all public officials must be able to point to lawful authority for their actions.In light of this, could the Prime Minister, who refuses to appear in committee, tell us whether he attempted to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with corruption, without regard for lawful authority?
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have confidence in our institutions and in the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The clerk confirmed that, at every opportunity, the Prime Minister clearly stated that this was a decision for the justice minister to take.Interestingly, the member opposite himself said he did not intend to harm SNC-Lavalin employees, but, in English, the member for Carleton said he wanted to shut down the company and was not afraid to say so. They need to be clear with the
Mr. Speaker, the director of public prosecutions has confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently.On this side of the House, the government has done its job properly and has followed all the rules and laws. We stand up for the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law. We know that this case was extensively discussed by the Premier of Quebec and many other individuals, including MPs. The case is currently before the Ethics Commissioner and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Mr. Speaker, in 2006, SNC-Lavalin illegally donated nearly $110,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada and its associations. Today, SNC-Lavalin needs help because it is in big trouble.The machinery was then set in motion. The company had more than 50 meetings with the government. Why?Over those two years, the company had 14 meetings with the Prime Minister's Office, or one meeting every two months. Why?The fact that the former justice minister will appear before the committee is something, and I look forward to hearing what she has to say. However, I would like to know why there were so many meetings with lobbyists.
Mr. Speaker, once again, the leader of the NDP met with SNC-Lavalin representatives. The leader of the Conservatives met with them also. The leaders of both parties met with them. Everyone knows this, and the leaders are not hiding it.We know that the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are doing their job. We, on this side of the House, firmly believe that they will do their job and ask questions, and that the witnesses will be able to respond.
Mr. Speaker, is that not an interesting admission? They now claim that they can sign a direct deal between the public works department and the company to protect pensioners and jobs. That was supposedly the justification for interrupting the criminal proceedings in the first place, so if they have the ability to do this without blocking the prosecution, there must be another motive for having tried to secure a deferred public prosecution agreement. Will the minister admit that they were just trying to protect their corporate cronies and not the jobs of the workers?
Mr. Speaker, as members of the House should know, the RCMP is totally independent. It never consults the Minister of Public Safety with respect to whether to launch or pursue an investigation, and that is exactly how it should be in a free and open democracy like ours.
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we do not believe in conspiracy theories; we go with facts. The UN global compact on migration is a framework agreement that allows countries to work together on issues such as foreign credentials recognition, which is a benefit for Canada. In fact, a lot of the measures in the agreement are actually other countries catching up to what Canada is already succeeding at. We will never apologize for being the world leader in settlement and integration of newcomers. Why? Because it is in our economic interests. It is the right thing to do, but it is also the smart thing to do. We are leading the world in talent attraction and investment, because investment follows talent.
Mr. Speaker, it was the Conservative government that put in place the integrity regime, and our government is working to in fact enhance it. We are increasing the scope of activities that could result in debarment from contracts with the government with our enhanced integrity regime. We are looking at putting in place a stronger integrity regime that definitely will benefit Canadians and make sure that Canadians' money is spent with integrity.
Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed that, at every opportunity, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was a decision for the minister of justice to take. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that, in each and every case, prosecutors 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.What is clear is that the Conservatives are saying one thing in French and something else in English. They should stop doing that.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected our government because of our plan to grow the economy and protect the environment. That is exactly what we are doing with a $1.5-billion investment in our oceans protection plan. We are also following the recommendations made by the Federal Court of Appeal concerning the progress of TMX. If it were up to the NDP, there would be no new investments in the natural resources sector. Fortunately, it is up to Canadians, who elected a government to grow the economy and protect the environment.
Mr. Speaker, constant snow and ice buildup on runways can sometimes present a challenge for pilots in landing safely at regional airports. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in the Kenora riding, there are 22 airports of this kind. My constituents rely on Red Lake Municipal Airport to support our local economy and to maintain social well-being within our community. Can the minister please inform my constituents about what is being done to help local airports address their safety concerns?
Mr. Speaker, our government understands that research excellence and equity go hand in hand, and with that I would like to acknowledge the extraordinary Professor Donna Strickland, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics. She is only the third woman in history to do so, the first one in 55 years.We have made changes to the Canada excellence research chairs and the Canada research chairs, and we will be bringing Athena SWAN to Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to break it down super simple. On September 4, the director of public prosecutions told SNC-Lavalin that there would be no agreement coming its way. They did not report it, and they did not think it was real until October, but miraculously, there were copious meetings between SNC-Lavalin lobbyists and the Prime Minister's Office and the Clerk of the Privy Council,So let us try this again. Who told them that they were going to be able to get out of going to court?
Again, Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record. 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.Last week, the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there is no direct communication, in any specific case, between the PMO and the DPP.The Clerk of the Privy Council also 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.We on this side will not undermine the work of committees or the commissioner, like the Conservatives
Mr. Speaker, the member continues to speculate rather than look at the facts. Let us look at the record so that Canadians can be reassured that they can have confidence in their institutions. 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. Last week, 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, the Prime Minister said it was a decision
Mr. Speaker, our government works to ensure the highest ethical standards for government procurement and effectively addressing wrongdoing. We have developed and are implementing a stronger integrity regime that holds companies accountable. PSPC has entered into an administrative agreement with this company while criminal proceedings are under way. This agreement permits the company to contract with the government while meeting strict corporate compliance conditions, ensuring strong oversight while protecting innocent third parties, like pensioners and employees, from financial harm.
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, the government, under the Prime Minister's leadership, increased resources to committees to help them do their work.We know that the MPs who sit on the Standing Committee on Justice, who come from both sides of the aisle, are doing their work. They are asking witnesses to appear, and the witnesses are appearing and answering questions.The striking thing is that this member claims to have no intention of hurting the employees of SNC-Lavalin. He says so himself. However, the member for Carleton says something quite different in English. He said
Mr. Speaker, the government is hiding the truth, two opposition parties could not care less about workers, and thousands of jobs are in jeopardy, but no one is doing a thing. Ottawa sure has its priorities straight.When will someone from this government realize that their inaction on the SNC-Lavalin matter could cost Quebec thousands of jobs?
Mr. Speaker, clearly, the NDP and Conservative members are sharing talking points, but 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 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.
Mr. Speaker, I asked a very simple and perfectly legitimate question. Did a cabinet minister, the Prime Minister's Office or anyone from the Prime Minister's inner circle tell SNC-Lavalin that it could avoid a criminal trial for the matter we are now all aware of that was brought to light over three weeks ago?Why is the Prime Minister refusing to explain his actions to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights?
Mr. Speaker, once again let us look at the record. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan considerations. 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 former minister of justice to take.We on this side have lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians so that we could increase them on the wealthiest 1%. The NDP said no to that measure.We on this side brought in the Canada child benefit. Today, Stats Canada confirmed that 278,000 kids have been lifted out of poverty and over 800,000 Canadians. The NDP
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have confidence in their institutions. They have lost confidence in the Liberal government.It was the Clerk of the Privy Council who made it very clear that the SNC-Lavalin special deal was never discussed at cabinet, yet the Prime Minister refused to answer direct questions on this matter, citing cabinet confidence.Either the Prime Minister was misleading Canadians, or the Clerk of the Privy Council was misleading Canadians. Which one of them was misleading Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, once again I will reassure Canadians that they can trust their institutions. We will share, once again, what happened at the justice committee last week.When it was asked if it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials to discuss the matter with the Attorney General, the Attorney General confirmed that those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.When asked about conversations about cabinet colleagues in his role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General and whether they were appropriate, the Attorney General answered, Absolutely.We have always and we will always have confidence in our institutions, and Canadians can as well.
Mr. Speaker, that member has definitely demonstrated where the priorities of the Conservatives are at.We on this side have respect for committees. We have respect for the independence of the judicial system. We have respect for officers of Parliament.We on this side lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians by increasing them on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians. Conservatives voted against it.We on this side introduced the Canada child benefit, a tax-free benefit. Today, Statistics Canada has confirmed 278,000 kids have been lifted out of poverty. Over 800,000 Canadians are benefiting from this program. Conservatives voted against it. Our focus will always be on Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, in 2010, the MP for Papineau gave his support to a campaign for the establishment of a United Nations parliament that would have power to adopt binding regulations on Canada. His government has been imposing UN recommendations on Canada on issues such as climate change and migration.Is the government planning to turn our country into a post-national subdivision of the UN or is it going to stand up for Canada as a sovereign nation deciding its own future?
Mr. Speaker, unlike the New Democratic Party, we on this side of the House do our homework.We want to make sure that we develop a pharmacare plan that will meet the needs of all Canadians. We created the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare to do just that.I look forward to seeing the council's recommendations. We will receive its report later this year.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kenora for his tireless work on behalf of his constituents. He knows that for this government, safety is our top priority. That is why I was delighted to join him at the airport in the community of Red Lake to highlight the new de-icing equipment and the new, improved runway lighting that is going to make the airport even safer. It is important for local residents, for tourists and for the local businesses that we will always put safety in front of everything at our regional airports.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is pursuing what is an absolutely improper line of questioning. The fact of the matter is that the RCMP is independent and should not be dragged into controversies on the floor of the House of Commons. It enforces the laws of Canada and does it at its own volition and discretion, and that is the way it should be in a free and open democracy.
I cannot blame her, Mr. Speaker. I would not want to answer my questions either. I have one question, which is very simple. I would like to know if between September 4 and October 10 the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Office, any cabinet minister, any lobbyist or anyone associated with the Prime Minister's Office indicated to SNC-Lavalin or gave assurances that it would be able to get a deferred public
Mr. Speaker, after eight years in this place, I thought that nothing could surprise me, but the Liberals can.The National Energy Board said in its report that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion does not respect indigenous rights, that it constitutes a danger to our environment and that it will affect an endangered species. However, the Liberals are going to move forward with the project anyway, on the pretext that it is in the national interest.Are we to understand that the Liberals believe that protecting our environment and respecting first nations is not in the national interest?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the member opposite for raising this very important question of the housing crisis that exists in many parts of Canada.That is because for too many years the federal government was not a leader and was not a partner in housing. That has changed. Since 2016 we have invested an additional $5.7 billion and have helped a million families. Last year, we launched the historic, first-ever national housing strategy, which is going to transform housing. We look forward to working with provinces and territories.
Mr. Speaker, in the SNC-Lavalin affair, the government claims that it is protecting jobs. The Minister of Transport keeps repeating that safety is his top priority.Meanwhile, Aéroports de Montréal, the Montreal airport authority, is raking in record profits while asking its employees to take a significant pay cut under the threat of contracting the work out. If that is not a hint of an intention to privatize, I do not know what is. Will the minister promise that these jobs, such as those related to safety certification, will not be contracted out on the cheap?
Mr. Speaker, that is one of the many members who was denying that members of the justice committee could do their work and would be able to meet. Today, that committee is meeting. The member and his party as well as the Conservatives said the justice committee would not be calling forward witnesses. Witnesses are appearing. They are answering questions. The member and his party as well as the Conservatives said the former attorney general would not be invited to speak. Members of the justice committee invited her to speak. She will be speaking. They need to stop undermining the work of committees and start respecting our institutions so that Canadians know that they can as well.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Mississauga EastCooksville for championing affordability issues. As he has highlighted, our government has recently announced a policy directive requiring the CRTC to look at competition, affordability, consumer interests and innovation, because wireless data plans are up to 32% cheaper than the national average in regions with strong competition. We are promoting more competition and more choice so that Canadians can have more affordable plans.
Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes how important science is in Canada. We rely on science every day for clean air and water, to improve health care for Canadians and to contribute to exciting new breakthroughs that help prepare us for the jobs and economy of tomorrow.We also know that when we invest in women, we strengthen our economy for everyone.Could the Minister of Science and Sport tell the House how we are increasing inclusion at our universities?
Mr. Speaker, with something as important as a national pharmacare program, this side of the House wants to get it done right, and that is why we are doing our homework. I am very pleased that we have put together an advisory council on the implementation of a national pharmacare program. We have six Canadian experts who are looking at this matter and having conversations with Canadians. I look forward to receiving the report later this spring to meet the needs of all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely not aware of any activity in relation to the RCMP, neither should we be. The RCMP is completely independent and it will pursue whatever matters it deems appropriate to pursue. For the opposition to attempt to politicize the situation is absolutely improper and contrary to the best interests of law enforcement in this country.
Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on improving the quality, the coverage, and most importantly, the price of telecommunication services for Canadians no matter where they live. Can the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development speak to the latest step our government is taking to ensure Canadian consumers have the quality services they deserve at affordable prices?
Mr. Speaker, the court provided us with a clear path to move this project forward in the right way, and that is what we are delivering. The member for SkeenaBulkley Valley, a supporter of the LNG Canada project that will go through his riding and create 10,000 good jobs, seems to pick and choose the pipelines he supports. The members of the NDP caucus seem to think they can pick and choose which court rulings they listen to. We know how important this process is to Canadians. We are working each day to get it right.
Mr. Speaker, I am really happy to get up and talk about the fact that since we were elected we have created 800,000 great paying jobs. This year, we are transforming the youth employment strategy to make sure that more young people have opportunities to succeed in the workplace. We are ensuring that every young person who wants an opportunity to apply for a summer job has that opportunity. Seventy thousand young people across the country will benefit from this.
Most positive speeches
Mr. Speaker, I am really happy to get up and talk about the fact that since we were elected we have created 800,000 great paying jobs. This year, we are transforming the youth employment strategy to make sure that more young people have opportunities to succeed in the workplace. We are ensuring that every young person who wants an opportunity to apply for a summer job has that opportunity. Seventy thousand young people across the country will benefit from this.
Mr. Speaker, the court provided us with a clear path to move this project forward in the right way, and that is what we are delivering. The member for SkeenaBulkley Valley, a supporter of the LNG Canada project that will go through his riding and create 10,000 good jobs, seems to pick and choose the pipelines he supports. The members of the NDP caucus seem to think they can pick and choose which court rulings they listen to. We know how important this process is to Canadians. We are working each day to get it right.
Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on improving the quality, the coverage, and most importantly, the price of telecommunication services for Canadians no matter where they live. Can the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development speak to the latest step our government is taking to ensure Canadian consumers have the quality services they deserve at affordable prices?
Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely not aware of any activity in relation to the RCMP, neither should we be. The RCMP is completely independent and it will pursue whatever matters it deems appropriate to pursue. For the opposition to attempt to politicize the situation is absolutely improper and contrary to the best interests of law enforcement in this country.
Mr. Speaker, with something as important as a national pharmacare program, this side of the House wants to get it done right, and that is why we are doing our homework. I am very pleased that we have put together an advisory council on the implementation of a national pharmacare program. We have six Canadian experts who are looking at this matter and having conversations with Canadians. I look forward to receiving the report later this spring to meet the needs of all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes how important science is in Canada. We rely on science every day for clean air and water, to improve health care for Canadians and to contribute to exciting new breakthroughs that help prepare us for the jobs and economy of tomorrow.We also know that when we invest in women, we strengthen our economy for everyone.Could the Minister of Science and Sport tell the House how we are increasing inclusion at our universities?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Mississauga EastCooksville for championing affordability issues. As he has highlighted, our government has recently announced a policy directive requiring the CRTC to look at competition, affordability, consumer interests and innovation, because wireless data plans are up to 32% cheaper than the national average in regions with strong competition. We are promoting more competition and more choice so that Canadians can have more affordable plans.
Mr. Speaker, that is one of the many members who was denying that members of the justice committee could do their work and would be able to meet. Today, that committee is meeting. The member and his party as well as the Conservatives said the justice committee would not be calling forward witnesses. Witnesses are appearing. They are answering questions. The member and his party as well as the Conservatives said the former attorney general would not be invited to speak. Members of the justice committee invited her to speak. She will be speaking. They need to stop undermining the work of committees and start respecting our institutions so that Canadians know that they can as well.
Mr. Speaker, in the SNC-Lavalin affair, the government claims that it is protecting jobs. The Minister of Transport keeps repeating that safety is his top priority.Meanwhile, Aéroports de Montréal, the Montreal airport authority, is raking in record profits while asking its employees to take a significant pay cut under the threat of contracting the work out. If that is not a hint of an intention to privatize, I do not know what is. Will the minister promise that these jobs, such as those related to safety certification, will not be contracted out on the cheap?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the member opposite for raising this very important question of the housing crisis that exists in many parts of Canada.That is because for too many years the federal government was not a leader and was not a partner in housing. That has changed. Since 2016 we have invested an additional $5.7 billion and have helped a million families. Last year, we launched the historic, first-ever national housing strategy, which is going to transform housing. We look forward to working with provinces and territories.
I cannot blame her, Mr. Speaker. I would not want to answer my questions either. I have one question, which is very simple. I would like to know if between September 4 and October 10 the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Office, any cabinet minister, any lobbyist or anyone associated with the Prime Minister's Office indicated to SNC-Lavalin or gave assurances that it would be able to get a deferred public
Mr. Speaker, after eight years in this place, I thought that nothing could surprise me, but the Liberals can.The National Energy Board said in its report that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion does not respect indigenous rights, that it constitutes a danger to our environment and that it will affect an endangered species. However, the Liberals are going to move forward with the project anyway, on the pretext that it is in the national interest.Are we to understand that the Liberals believe that protecting our environment and respecting first nations is not in the national interest?
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is pursuing what is an absolutely improper line of questioning. The fact of the matter is that the RCMP is independent and should not be dragged into controversies on the floor of the House of Commons. It enforces the laws of Canada and does it at its own volition and discretion, and that is the way it should be in a free and open democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kenora for his tireless work on behalf of his constituents. He knows that for this government, safety is our top priority. That is why I was delighted to join him at the airport in the community of Red Lake to highlight the new de-icing equipment and the new, improved runway lighting that is going to make the airport even safer. It is important for local residents, for tourists and for the local businesses that we will always put safety in front of everything at our regional airports.
Mr. Speaker, unlike the New Democratic Party, we on this side of the House do our homework.We want to make sure that we develop a pharmacare plan that will meet the needs of all Canadians. We created the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare to do just that.I look forward to seeing the council's recommendations. We will receive its report later this year.
Mr. Speaker, once again I will reassure Canadians that they can trust their institutions. We will share, once again, what happened at the justice committee last week.When it was asked if it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials to discuss the matter with the Attorney General, the Attorney General confirmed that those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.When asked about conversations about cabinet colleagues in his role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General and whether they were appropriate, the Attorney General answered, Absolutely.We have always and we will always have confidence in our institutions, and Canadians can as well.
Mr. Speaker, that member has definitely demonstrated where the priorities of the Conservatives are at.We on this side have respect for committees. We have respect for the independence of the judicial system. We have respect for officers of Parliament.We on this side lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians by increasing them on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians. Conservatives voted against it.We on this side introduced the Canada child benefit, a tax-free benefit. Today, Statistics Canada has confirmed 278,000 kids have been lifted out of poverty. Over 800,000 Canadians are benefiting from this program. Conservatives voted against it. Our focus will always be on Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, in 2010, the MP for Papineau gave his support to a campaign for the establishment of a United Nations parliament that would have power to adopt binding regulations on Canada. His government has been imposing UN recommendations on Canada on issues such as climate change and migration.Is the government planning to turn our country into a post-national subdivision of the UN or is it going to stand up for Canada as a sovereign nation deciding its own future?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have confidence in their institutions. They have lost confidence in the Liberal government.It was the Clerk of the Privy Council who made it very clear that the SNC-Lavalin special deal was never discussed at cabinet, yet the Prime Minister refused to answer direct questions on this matter, citing cabinet confidence.Either the Prime Minister was misleading Canadians, or the Clerk of the Privy Council was misleading Canadians. Which one of them was misleading Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, once again let us look at the record. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan considerations. 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 former minister of justice to take.We on this side have lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians so that we could increase them on the wealthiest 1%. The NDP said no to that measure.We on this side brought in the Canada child benefit. Today, Stats Canada confirmed that 278,000 kids have been lifted out of poverty and over 800,000 Canadians. The NDP
Mr. Speaker, I asked a very simple and perfectly legitimate question. Did a cabinet minister, the Prime Minister's Office or anyone from the Prime Minister's inner circle tell SNC-Lavalin that it could avoid a criminal trial for the matter we are now all aware of that was brought to light over three weeks ago?Why is the Prime Minister refusing to explain his actions to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights?
Mr. Speaker, clearly, the NDP and Conservative members are sharing talking points, but 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 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.
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, the government, under the Prime Minister's leadership, increased resources to committees to help them do their work.We know that the MPs who sit on the Standing Committee on Justice, who come from both sides of the aisle, are doing their work. They are asking witnesses to appear, and the witnesses are appearing and answering questions.The striking thing is that this member claims to have no intention of hurting the employees of SNC-Lavalin. He says so himself. However, the member for Carleton says something quite different in English. He said
Mr. Speaker, the government is hiding the truth, two opposition parties could not care less about workers, and thousands of jobs are in jeopardy, but no one is doing a thing. Ottawa sure has its priorities straight.When will someone from this government realize that their inaction on the SNC-Lavalin matter could cost Quebec thousands of jobs?
Mr. Speaker, our government works to ensure the highest ethical standards for government procurement and effectively addressing wrongdoing. We have developed and are implementing a stronger integrity regime that holds companies accountable. PSPC has entered into an administrative agreement with this company while criminal proceedings are under way. This agreement permits the company to contract with the government while meeting strict corporate compliance conditions, ensuring strong oversight while protecting innocent third parties, like pensioners and employees, from financial harm.
Mr. Speaker, the member continues to speculate rather than look at the facts. Let us look at the record so that Canadians can be reassured that they can have confidence in their institutions. 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. Last week, 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, the Prime Minister said it was a decision
Again, Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record. 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.Last week, the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there is no direct communication, in any specific case, between the PMO and the DPP.The Clerk of the Privy Council also 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.We on this side will not undermine the work of committees or the commissioner, like the Conservatives
Mr. Speaker, I am going to break it down super simple. On September 4, the director of public prosecutions told SNC-Lavalin that there would be no agreement coming its way. They did not report it, and they did not think it was real until October, but miraculously, there were copious meetings between SNC-Lavalin lobbyists and the Prime Minister's Office and the Clerk of the Privy Council,So let us try this again. Who told them that they were going to be able to get out of going to court?
Mr. Speaker, our government understands that research excellence and equity go hand in hand, and with that I would like to acknowledge the extraordinary Professor Donna Strickland, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics. She is only the third woman in history to do so, the first one in 55 years.We have made changes to the Canada excellence research chairs and the Canada research chairs, and we will be bringing Athena SWAN to Canada.
Mr. Speaker, constant snow and ice buildup on runways can sometimes present a challenge for pilots in landing safely at regional airports. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in the Kenora riding, there are 22 airports of this kind. My constituents rely on Red Lake Municipal Airport to support our local economy and to maintain social well-being within our community. Can the minister please inform my constituents about what is being done to help local airports address their safety concerns?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected our government because of our plan to grow the economy and protect the environment. That is exactly what we are doing with a $1.5-billion investment in our oceans protection plan. We are also following the recommendations made by the Federal Court of Appeal concerning the progress of TMX. If it were up to the NDP, there would be no new investments in the natural resources sector. Fortunately, it is up to Canadians, who elected a government to grow the economy and protect the environment.
Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed that, at every opportunity, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was a decision for the minister of justice to take. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that, in each and every case, prosecutors 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.What is clear is that the Conservatives are saying one thing in French and something else in English. They should stop doing that.
Mr. Speaker, it was the Conservative government that put in place the integrity regime, and our government is working to in fact enhance it. We are increasing the scope of activities that could result in debarment from contracts with the government with our enhanced integrity regime. We are looking at putting in place a stronger integrity regime that definitely will benefit Canadians and make sure that Canadians' money is spent with integrity.
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we do not believe in conspiracy theories; we go with facts. The UN global compact on migration is a framework agreement that allows countries to work together on issues such as foreign credentials recognition, which is a benefit for Canada. In fact, a lot of the measures in the agreement are actually other countries catching up to what Canada is already succeeding at. We will never apologize for being the world leader in settlement and integration of newcomers. Why? Because it is in our economic interests. It is the right thing to do, but it is also the smart thing to do. We are leading the world in talent attraction and investment, because investment follows talent.
Mr. Speaker, as members of the House should know, the RCMP is totally independent. It never consults the Minister of Public Safety with respect to whether to launch or pursue an investigation, and that is exactly how it should be in a free and open democracy like ours.
Mr. Speaker, is that not an interesting admission? They now claim that they can sign a direct deal between the public works department and the company to protect pensioners and jobs. That was supposedly the justification for interrupting the criminal proceedings in the first place, so if they have the ability to do this without blocking the prosecution, there must be another motive for having tried to secure a deferred public prosecution agreement. Will the minister admit that they were just trying to protect their corporate cronies and not the jobs of the workers?
Mr. Speaker, in 2006, SNC-Lavalin illegally donated nearly $110,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada and its associations. Today, SNC-Lavalin needs help because it is in big trouble.The machinery was then set in motion. The company had more than 50 meetings with the government. Why?Over those two years, the company had 14 meetings with the Prime Minister's Office, or one meeting every two months. Why?The fact that the former justice minister will appear before the committee is something, and I look forward to hearing what she has to say. However, I would like to know why there were so many meetings with lobbyists.
Mr. Speaker, once again, the leader of the NDP met with SNC-Lavalin representatives. The leader of the Conservatives met with them also. The leaders of both parties met with them. Everyone knows this, and the leaders are not hiding it.We know that the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are doing their job. We, on this side of the House, firmly believe that they will do their job and ask questions, and that the witnesses will be able to respond.
Mr. Speaker, the director of public prosecutions has confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently.On this side of the House, the government has done its job properly and has followed all the rules and laws. We stand up for the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law. We know that this case was extensively discussed by the Premier of Quebec and many other individuals, including MPs. The case is currently before the Ethics Commissioner and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have confidence in our institutions and in the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The clerk confirmed that, at every opportunity, the Prime Minister clearly stated that this was a decision for the justice minister to take.Interestingly, the member opposite himself said he did not intend to harm SNC-Lavalin employees, but, in English, the member for Carleton said he wanted to shut down the company and was not afraid to say so. They need to be clear with the
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons often talks about what is happening at the justice committee.In fact, yesterday afternoon, retired judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond testified that all public officials must be able to point to lawful authority for their actions.In light of this, could the Prime Minister, who refuses to appear in committee, tell us whether he attempted to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with corruption, without regard for lawful authority?
Mr. Speaker, the government is continually trying to find new ways to justify the political interference in an ongoing court case by the Prime Minister and his key advisers. The law on this is actually very clear. If an organization, like SNC-Lavalin, is charged with bribery, then the law states, the prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest.The former attorney general made her decision. She said no, so why did the Prime Minister not take no for an answer?
Mr. Speaker, following the decision of the director of public prosecutions, there were three separate attempts to pressure the former attorney general. That pressure did not come from mere lackeys.First it was the Prime Minister, then his principal secretary, and finally Canada's top public servant. Those three individuals, the most powerful people in the Canadian government, put direct pressure on the former attorney general. The question is very simple, since we still have not had an answer.Was this matter discussed at cabinet, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, too many people skip the medicine they need because the prices are too high. All Canadians deserve coverage, but instead, the Liberals are cooking up a half-baked plan that leaves workers out. Do the Liberals not know that employer coverage is not what it used to be? Corporations have been rolling back benefits for working people, leaving them with not only less coverage but often with no coverage for the drugs they need. Canadians want a comprehensive, universal, single-payer pharmacare plan that covers everyone equally. Why are the Liberals refusing to listen?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.We can absolutely stand up for the workers, suppliers and retirees of a company like SNC-Lavalin while at the same time complying with ethics rules and all of the other legal rules surrounding these discussions.On this side of the House, we always stand up for workers in Quebec and across the country and for suppliers and retirees. That is what we are doing on this side of the House. We would like the opposition to talk about standing up for workers too from time to time.
Mr. Speaker, everyone in Canada deserves a safe, affordable place to call home, but the housing crisis is leaving many of us out in the cold. People need solutions now, not years from now. That is why Burnaby South elected Jagmeet Singh, a leader who understands the urgency of the housing crisis, unlike the Liberals, who fail to act. Canadians cannot wait any longer. Why are the Liberals so quick on their feet when their rich corporate friends need something, yet refuse to ensure safe, affordable housing for those who desperately need it now?
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record. 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. We on this side have increased resources to committees so that committees can do their work. Members from both sides sit on the justice committee. Justice committee members have come together to ask for witnesses to appear. Witnesses are appearing.I will remind the House and all Canadians what Canadians said no to. Canadians said no to the failed approach of austerity by the Conservatives, which their leader continues to fight for.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday's letter from the former justice minister shows the extraordinary steps she has had to take to force the Prime Minister's hand to lift the legal gag order so she can speak truth to a parliamentary committee. However, she is not the only person we need to hear from in the SNC-Lavalin scandal. We notice that there were numerous attempts by the Prime Minister's staff to pressure her into intervening in an independent legal investigation after it was found out that SNC was not eligible and they used a manifestly illegal argument, which was the economic interest.In the interests of fairness, will the Prime Minister agree that Katie Telford and Gerry Butts and the rest of his staff will also testify in this hearing?
Mr. Speaker, we know that cannot be their motivation. We know that because when they wrote the law they specifically excluded the national economic interest. They wrote the law and then tried to get the former attorney general to break the law. She said no. Apparently people in the Prime Minister's Office would not take no for an answer. Why would the Prime Minister not accept the decision of the independent prosecutor of Canada?
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Safety and it is a very direct question.Has any staff member or any minister been contacted by the RCMP with respect to the SNC-Lavalin investigation? The answer is simple: yes or no.
Mr. Speaker, there is a world of difference between one meeting and 50 meetings. Here is what we know. The director of public prosecutions formally rejected a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin on September 4. Two weeks later, on September 17, the Prime Minister met with the former justice minister to discuss the matter. The day after that meeting, SNC-Lavalin lobbyists managed to get four meetings with senior officials and ministers. Would the Minister of Finance or the Minister of International Trade Diversification, who each took one of those meetings, be willing to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to explain what those conversations were about?
Mr. Speaker, people across the country are struggling to afford their medications and struggling to make ends meet. Instead of helping these people, the Liberal government continues to tell them that they must wait.Unions are in Ottawa this week to urge the government to work on creating a universal pharmacare program that is fully funded for everyone. People clearly need a single-payer universal pharmacare system that provides equal coverage to everyone. When will this government take action?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives will continue to speculate. We know that is their approach. It was their approach for 10 years under Stephen Harper, and unfortunately that remains the case today.Canadians are paying attention. They have not forgotten the rule book that the Conservatives released so that they could undermine and destroy committees. We on this side increased resources to committees, so that committees could do their important work.What was confirmed by the justice committee is that when the Clerk of the Privy Council appeared at committee to answer questions, he said, 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.
Mr. Speaker, over 350 delegates from the Canadian Labour Congress are in Ottawa today to talk about pension security and pharmacare. They echoed similar concerns brought by the coalition of retiree organizations last week in Ottawa. It is clear that workers and retirees want the Liberals to finally take action to provide real pension security for seniors and to introduce a fully universal pharmacare program. Canadians are no longer buying the empty promises. They want solutions now. Are the Liberals listening? When will they finally take action?
Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Liberals' cover-up on this SNC-Lavalin scandal is that they are having trouble keeping their stories straight.The Clerk of the Privy Council testified last week that there was no discussion of the special deal for SNC-Lavalin at cabinet, but the Minister of National Revenue went on the radio and said that the SNC-Lavalin deal was discussed at cabinet. Only one of these people can be telling the truth. Which one of them is it?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have no respect for committees. Those of us on this side of the House know that members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights have called witnesses to appear. The witnesses are appearing and answering questions from members on both sides.We know this matter is currently before the Commissioner of Ethics and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We on this side of the House respect the work of the commissioner and the committee. Clearly the Conservatives do not.
Mr. Speaker, instead of respecting the former attorney general and the independence of her office, the Prime Minister launched a concerted campaign to change her mind, a concerted campaign to interfere with the independence of the office of the Attorney General. What lawful authority did he have to do that?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the justice committee, retired judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond testified that public officials must be able to point to lawful authority for their actions. What lawful authority did the Prime Minister have to conspire to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with bribery? What lawful authority?
Mr. Speaker, they will continue to speculate, but we, on this side of the House, are interested in the facts.The leader of the Conservative Party met with the company, as did the leader of the NDP. The Conservative deputy leader said in committee that she did not want to give the impression or go on the record as saying that there was anything wrong with meeting with SNC-Lavalin.We, on this side of the House, respect the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We respect the work of all committees. That is exactly why we increased resources to committees. We will not take the Conservative approach.
Mr. Speaker, somebody is going to have to answer this question, because on September 4, the director of public prosecutions actually informed SNC-Lavalin that it would not be receiving a deferred public prosecution agreement. However, the audited financial statements of SNC-Lavalin indicate that the company was advised by the director of PPSC in October 2018 that it would not be invited by the PPSC. Who in the Prime Minister's Office gave the assurance between September 4 and October 10 that there would not be a problem with the PPSC?
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for this genius pipeline-owning Prime Minister, the one who handed over $4.5 billion to a Texas oil company after its pipeline was thrown out of court. Now he is looking to spend another $10 billion to $15 billion of our money. The National Energy Board admits that this pipeline will hammer the environment, hurt indigenous relations and further wreck our climate. Governing is about making choices, and the Liberals are actually weighing the choice between protecting an orca population, repairing indigenous relations and actually fixing our carbon emissions, or building their pipeline. Which one is it going to be?
Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that, even though the legislation exists, there are ongoing court cases, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment.
Mr. Speaker, that line is getting old.One thing is for sure: the committee is ready, but the Prime Minister has refused to testify. We also know the Prime Minister and his team pressured the former attorney general to halt criminal proceedings against SNC-Lavalin.They did not see eye to eye on that, so what did the Prime Minister do? He gave her the boot.Now Canadians know that their self-styled feminist, transparent government is nothing but a joke.Once again, by what lawful authority did the Prime Minister attempt to halt criminal proceedings against SNC-Lavalin?
Mr. Speaker, the government is working now on changing the policy so that the company could get an administrative agreement even after conviction. In other words, it did not need to go about blocking the prosecution to achieve that goal. If it was not to protect the workers or the pensioners or any other innocent party, who does it leave that the government was actually protecting? Is it not clear that this company, which gave over $100,000 in illegal donations to the Liberal Party, is the real organization these Liberals are trying to protect?
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the year, when the Prime Minister fired the former attorney general of Canada, she wrote a letter that spoke volumes. She wrote that it was vital to maintain a separation between the criminal justice system and politics. However, that is the exact problem at the heart of the Liberal scandal that has been rattling our country for the past three weeks.We know that, on September 4, the director of public prosecutions said that she would be moving forward with the case against SNC-Lavalin.I have a perfectly simple question. Did cabinet discuss this matter, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, as I replied in my last answer, we are not aware of any such activity in relation to the RCMP and neither should we be, because the RCMP is completely independent.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his work on the pension security file.Our government takes pension security for seniors very seriously. It is our government that, after decades, has invested the time, energy and effort to get this right. That was included in the budget as well as my mandate letter. As a result of that, we have had consultations. We have had over 4,000 submissions. We want to have an evidence-based solution and ensure pensioners do not suffer unintended consequences. We are working hard and we are going to get this right.
Mr. Speaker, again it certainly feels like the Liberals are not in the business of answering the question. The question is quite simple and Canadians deserve to know. There is a crisis in the rule of law. This is not politics as usual. This is serious and Canadians know there is a deeper scandal.Again, has any current or former cabinet minister or Liberal staffer been contacted by the RCMP over the SNC-Lavalin affair or anything else pertaining to the former attorney general's portfolio, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Conservatives has just confirmed that there are two ongoing court cases. We on this side take seriously the responsibility of standing up for jobs and growing the economy. The justice official backgrounder on remediation agreements states that two of the main purposes for remediation agreements are, one, to hold the organization accountable for wrongdoing and, two, to reduce the harm that a criminal conviction of an organization could have for employees, pensioners, stakeholders and other third parties who did not take part in the offence. We will always protect Canadian jobs. That is what we do on this side.
Mr. Speaker, the illegal trip to the Aga Khan's billionaire island, the lucrative clam fishing contract directly awarded to an in-law, investigations on shady land deals in Brampton, four groping scandals, including the feminist Prime Minister himself, and now obstructing justice to prevent the rich executives accused of bribing the Gadhafi regime from facing a trial. Enough is enough.Why are there two sets of rules: one that benefits the Prime Minister and his cronies, and one that hurts everyone else?
Mr. Speaker, again, she is saying things that just are not true. We know they tried to interfere with an independent legal officer. They tried to get the former attorney general to change her mind. She said no. She said no on multiple occasions. In her view, and the view of the independent Crown prosecutor, SNC-Lavalin, based on serious corruption and bribery charges, did not qualify for one of these deals the way the Liberals themselves wrote it. Now they are trying to hide behind crocodile tears that no one is believing.Here is a very specific question for the House leader. Did anyone in the Liberal government communicate to SNC-Lavalin
Mr. Speaker, in Canada, we have the rule of law. In Canada, we have a system that works. Canadians can have confidence in that system. Members from both sides of the aisle sit on the justice committee. The member who asked the question is actually a member of the justice committee. He knows very well that when witnesses appear who have been asked to appear, witnesses are answering questions. We on this side have confidence in the work of the justice committee. It is really too bad that the member and his party do not.
Mr. Speaker, she is not going to get her honorary set of gold SNC cufflinks with excuses like that, because we are talking about illegal interventions by the Prime Minister's Office. The Prime Minister and the clerk met with the former justice minister on September 17. She said no. The PMO official met her on December 5. She said no. The PMO staff met with her staff on December 18. They said no. Then the Clerk of the Privy Council met with her on December 19. She said no and was removed from her position soon after.In the interest of corruption, I ask the Prime Minister this. When does no mean no for the Liberal Party?
Mr. Speaker, once again, we on this side will always respect the work of committees. We on this side will always respect the independent judicial system. We on this side will always respect the independence of officers of Parliament. We on this side will always protect Canadian jobs and stand up for them. We know our plan is working, and that is why Canadians have created over 800,000 jobs since we took office. What is the record of the Conservatives? They had the least amount of growth, the worst growth since the Great Depression. Now we know why. Because they will not stand up for Canadian jobs.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the justice committee, a former judge testified that the RCMP integrity unit should thoroughly examine the Prime Minister's alleged interference with SNC-Lavalin's criminal trial. I have a simple question. Has the Prime Minister or anyone in the PMO been contacted by the RCMP?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know the truth about the SNC-Lavalin case.However, yesterday, the Prime Minister and the Liberal members refused the request for the Prime Minister to testify before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.Will he answer a simple question? Did anyone in the PMO or any of the ministers close to him assure SNC-Lavalin that there would not be a criminal trial, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that if he had allowed SNC-Lavalin to face criminal conviction, the company would go out of business, because corporate criminals are banned from federal contracts. But wait; in December 2015, the government gave SNC a deal exempting it from the ban, despite criminal charges. Now the government is changing the policy to exempt SNC even if it is convicted. If the Prime Minister plans to allow SNC to get contracts, even after a conviction, why did he need to intervene to stop the company from going to trial in the first place?
Mr. Speaker, once again, it is not surprising that the Conservatives will undermine the work of committees. Once again, it is not surprising that the Conservatives will undermine the work of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. They did it for 10 years under Stephen Harper. Today they have chosen a new leader, but it still remains the same party as Stephen Harper's. Canadians can have confidence in their institutions. We on this side will let them do their work. They are meeting. They are calling forward witnesses. Witnesses are appearing and answering those tough questions. Members from both sides are present.
Mr. Speaker, that was not the question that was asked. Canadians deserve an answer to this very simple question. Has the RCMP contacted the PMO or the Prime Minister about this alleged interference in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin?
Mr. Speaker, the justice official backgrounder on remediation agreements states two of the main purposes for remediation agreements: one, to hold the organization accountable for wrongdoing; and, two, to reduce the harm a criminal conviction of an organization could have for employees, pensioners, shareholders and other third parties who did not take part in the offence.The record shows that the leader of the Conservative Party met with the company. We know that the leader of the NDP met with the company. We know the deputy leader herself said on the record that she disagreed that there is anything wrong with meeting the company.We on this side will focus on Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, SNC-Lavalin just lost $1.6 billion. In real terms, this amount represents jobs lost in Quebec. What is the opposition talking about? It is talking about the Prime Minister and his bad relationship with the former minister of justice. What is the opposition talking about? It is talking about the Prime Minister and his bad relationships. What is the Prime Minister talking about? He is talking about who he can blame for his fiasco. The real issue is getting lost. Without a remediation agreement, Quebec will lose a head office and thousands of jobs.When will the Minister of Justice sign a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin?
Mr. Speaker, I feel like the hon. House leader is being paid by the word today.I would say this. I have very few words on this matter. What I would like to know is this.I am sorry. I cannot
Mr. Speaker, it is the practice of the government to put in place administrative agreements with companies while criminal proceedings are under way. This administrative agreement will terminate if there is a criminal conviction. In the meantime, we cannot comment on any ongoing court cases.
Mr. Speaker, I am really happy to get up and talk about the fact that since we were elected we have created 800,000 great paying jobs. This year, we are transforming the youth employment strategy to make sure that more young people have opportunities to succeed in the workplace. We are ensuring that every young person who wants an opportunity to apply for a summer job has that opportunity. Seventy thousand young people across the country will benefit from this.
Mr. Speaker, the court provided us with a clear path to move this project forward in the right way, and that is what we are delivering. The member for SkeenaBulkley Valley, a supporter of the LNG Canada project that will go through his riding and create 10,000 good jobs, seems to pick and choose the pipelines he supports. The members of the NDP caucus seem to think they can pick and choose which court rulings they listen to. We know how important this process is to Canadians. We are working each day to get it right.
Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on improving the quality, the coverage, and most importantly, the price of telecommunication services for Canadians no matter where they live. Can the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development speak to the latest step our government is taking to ensure Canadian consumers have the quality services they deserve at affordable prices?
Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely not aware of any activity in relation to the RCMP, neither should we be. The RCMP is completely independent and it will pursue whatever matters it deems appropriate to pursue. For the opposition to attempt to politicize the situation is absolutely improper and contrary to the best interests of law enforcement in this country.
Mr. Speaker, with something as important as a national pharmacare program, this side of the House wants to get it done right, and that is why we are doing our homework. I am very pleased that we have put together an advisory council on the implementation of a national pharmacare program. We have six Canadian experts who are looking at this matter and having conversations with Canadians. I look forward to receiving the report later this spring to meet the needs of all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes how important science is in Canada. We rely on science every day for clean air and water, to improve health care for Canadians and to contribute to exciting new breakthroughs that help prepare us for the jobs and economy of tomorrow.We also know that when we invest in women, we strengthen our economy for everyone.Could the Minister of Science and Sport tell the House how we are increasing inclusion at our universities?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Mississauga EastCooksville for championing affordability issues. As he has highlighted, our government has recently announced a policy directive requiring the CRTC to look at competition, affordability, consumer interests and innovation, because wireless data plans are up to 32% cheaper than the national average in regions with strong competition. We are promoting more competition and more choice so that Canadians can have more affordable plans.
Mr. Speaker, that is one of the many members who was denying that members of the justice committee could do their work and would be able to meet. Today, that committee is meeting. The member and his party as well as the Conservatives said the justice committee would not be calling forward witnesses. Witnesses are appearing. They are answering questions. The member and his party as well as the Conservatives said the former attorney general would not be invited to speak. Members of the justice committee invited her to speak. She will be speaking. They need to stop undermining the work of committees and start respecting our institutions so that Canadians know that they can as well.
Mr. Speaker, in the SNC-Lavalin affair, the government claims that it is protecting jobs. The Minister of Transport keeps repeating that safety is his top priority.Meanwhile, Aéroports de Montréal, the Montreal airport authority, is raking in record profits while asking its employees to take a significant pay cut under the threat of contracting the work out. If that is not a hint of an intention to privatize, I do not know what is. Will the minister promise that these jobs, such as those related to safety certification, will not be contracted out on the cheap?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the member opposite for raising this very important question of the housing crisis that exists in many parts of Canada.That is because for too many years the federal government was not a leader and was not a partner in housing. That has changed. Since 2016 we have invested an additional $5.7 billion and have helped a million families. Last year, we launched the historic, first-ever national housing strategy, which is going to transform housing. We look forward to working with provinces and territories.
I cannot blame her, Mr. Speaker. I would not want to answer my questions either. I have one question, which is very simple. I would like to know if between September 4 and October 10 the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Office, any cabinet minister, any lobbyist or anyone associated with the Prime Minister's Office indicated to SNC-Lavalin or gave assurances that it would be able to get a deferred public
Mr. Speaker, after eight years in this place, I thought that nothing could surprise me, but the Liberals can.The National Energy Board said in its report that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion does not respect indigenous rights, that it constitutes a danger to our environment and that it will affect an endangered species. However, the Liberals are going to move forward with the project anyway, on the pretext that it is in the national interest.Are we to understand that the Liberals believe that protecting our environment and respecting first nations is not in the national interest?
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is pursuing what is an absolutely improper line of questioning. The fact of the matter is that the RCMP is independent and should not be dragged into controversies on the floor of the House of Commons. It enforces the laws of Canada and does it at its own volition and discretion, and that is the way it should be in a free and open democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kenora for his tireless work on behalf of his constituents. He knows that for this government, safety is our top priority. That is why I was delighted to join him at the airport in the community of Red Lake to highlight the new de-icing equipment and the new, improved runway lighting that is going to make the airport even safer. It is important for local residents, for tourists and for the local businesses that we will always put safety in front of everything at our regional airports.
Mr. Speaker, unlike the New Democratic Party, we on this side of the House do our homework.We want to make sure that we develop a pharmacare plan that will meet the needs of all Canadians. We created the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare to do just that.I look forward to seeing the council's recommendations. We will receive its report later this year.
Mr. Speaker, once again I will reassure Canadians that they can trust their institutions. We will share, once again, what happened at the justice committee last week.When it was asked if it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials to discuss the matter with the Attorney General, the Attorney General confirmed that those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.When asked about conversations about cabinet colleagues in his role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General and whether they were appropriate, the Attorney General answered, Absolutely.We have always and we will always have confidence in our institutions, and Canadians can as well.
Mr. Speaker, that member has definitely demonstrated where the priorities of the Conservatives are at.We on this side have respect for committees. We have respect for the independence of the judicial system. We have respect for officers of Parliament.We on this side lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians by increasing them on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians. Conservatives voted against it.We on this side introduced the Canada child benefit, a tax-free benefit. Today, Statistics Canada has confirmed 278,000 kids have been lifted out of poverty. Over 800,000 Canadians are benefiting from this program. Conservatives voted against it. Our focus will always be on Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, in 2010, the MP for Papineau gave his support to a campaign for the establishment of a United Nations parliament that would have power to adopt binding regulations on Canada. His government has been imposing UN recommendations on Canada on issues such as climate change and migration.Is the government planning to turn our country into a post-national subdivision of the UN or is it going to stand up for Canada as a sovereign nation deciding its own future?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have confidence in their institutions. They have lost confidence in the Liberal government.It was the Clerk of the Privy Council who made it very clear that the SNC-Lavalin special deal was never discussed at cabinet, yet the Prime Minister refused to answer direct questions on this matter, citing cabinet confidence.Either the Prime Minister was misleading Canadians, or the Clerk of the Privy Council was misleading Canadians. Which one of them was misleading Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, once again let us look at the record. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan considerations. 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 former minister of justice to take.We on this side have lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians so that we could increase them on the wealthiest 1%. The NDP said no to that measure.We on this side brought in the Canada child benefit. Today, Stats Canada confirmed that 278,000 kids have been lifted out of poverty and over 800,000 Canadians. The NDP
Mr. Speaker, I asked a very simple and perfectly legitimate question. Did a cabinet minister, the Prime Minister's Office or anyone from the Prime Minister's inner circle tell SNC-Lavalin that it could avoid a criminal trial for the matter we are now all aware of that was brought to light over three weeks ago?Why is the Prime Minister refusing to explain his actions to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights?
Mr. Speaker, clearly, the NDP and Conservative members are sharing talking points, but 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 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.
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, the government, under the Prime Minister's leadership, increased resources to committees to help them do their work.We know that the MPs who sit on the Standing Committee on Justice, who come from both sides of the aisle, are doing their work. They are asking witnesses to appear, and the witnesses are appearing and answering questions.The striking thing is that this member claims to have no intention of hurting the employees of SNC-Lavalin. He says so himself. However, the member for Carleton says something quite different in English. He said
Mr. Speaker, the government is hiding the truth, two opposition parties could not care less about workers, and thousands of jobs are in jeopardy, but no one is doing a thing. Ottawa sure has its priorities straight.When will someone from this government realize that their inaction on the SNC-Lavalin matter could cost Quebec thousands of jobs?
Mr. Speaker, our government works to ensure the highest ethical standards for government procurement and effectively addressing wrongdoing. We have developed and are implementing a stronger integrity regime that holds companies accountable. PSPC has entered into an administrative agreement with this company while criminal proceedings are under way. This agreement permits the company to contract with the government while meeting strict corporate compliance conditions, ensuring strong oversight while protecting innocent third parties, like pensioners and employees, from financial harm.
Mr. Speaker, the member continues to speculate rather than look at the facts. Let us look at the record so that Canadians can be reassured that they can have confidence in their institutions. 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. Last week, 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, the Prime Minister said it was a decision
Again, Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record. 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.Last week, the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there is no direct communication, in any specific case, between the PMO and the DPP.The Clerk of the Privy Council also 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.We on this side will not undermine the work of committees or the commissioner, like the Conservatives
Mr. Speaker, I am going to break it down super simple. On September 4, the director of public prosecutions told SNC-Lavalin that there would be no agreement coming its way. They did not report it, and they did not think it was real until October, but miraculously, there were copious meetings between SNC-Lavalin lobbyists and the Prime Minister's Office and the Clerk of the Privy Council,So let us try this again. Who told them that they were going to be able to get out of going to court?
Mr. Speaker, our government understands that research excellence and equity go hand in hand, and with that I would like to acknowledge the extraordinary Professor Donna Strickland, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics. She is only the third woman in history to do so, the first one in 55 years.We have made changes to the Canada excellence research chairs and the Canada research chairs, and we will be bringing Athena SWAN to Canada.
Mr. Speaker, constant snow and ice buildup on runways can sometimes present a challenge for pilots in landing safely at regional airports. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in the Kenora riding, there are 22 airports of this kind. My constituents rely on Red Lake Municipal Airport to support our local economy and to maintain social well-being within our community. Can the minister please inform my constituents about what is being done to help local airports address their safety concerns?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected our government because of our plan to grow the economy and protect the environment. That is exactly what we are doing with a $1.5-billion investment in our oceans protection plan. We are also following the recommendations made by the Federal Court of Appeal concerning the progress of TMX. If it were up to the NDP, there would be no new investments in the natural resources sector. Fortunately, it is up to Canadians, who elected a government to grow the economy and protect the environment.
Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed that, at every opportunity, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was a decision for the minister of justice to take. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that, in each and every case, prosecutors 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.What is clear is that the Conservatives are saying one thing in French and something else in English. They should stop doing that.
Mr. Speaker, it was the Conservative government that put in place the integrity regime, and our government is working to in fact enhance it. We are increasing the scope of activities that could result in debarment from contracts with the government with our enhanced integrity regime. We are looking at putting in place a stronger integrity regime that definitely will benefit Canadians and make sure that Canadians' money is spent with integrity.
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we do not believe in conspiracy theories; we go with facts. The UN global compact on migration is a framework agreement that allows countries to work together on issues such as foreign credentials recognition, which is a benefit for Canada. In fact, a lot of the measures in the agreement are actually other countries catching up to what Canada is already succeeding at. We will never apologize for being the world leader in settlement and integration of newcomers. Why? Because it is in our economic interests. It is the right thing to do, but it is also the smart thing to do. We are leading the world in talent attraction and investment, because investment follows talent.
Mr. Speaker, as members of the House should know, the RCMP is totally independent. It never consults the Minister of Public Safety with respect to whether to launch or pursue an investigation, and that is exactly how it should be in a free and open democracy like ours.
Mr. Speaker, is that not an interesting admission? They now claim that they can sign a direct deal between the public works department and the company to protect pensioners and jobs. That was supposedly the justification for interrupting the criminal proceedings in the first place, so if they have the ability to do this without blocking the prosecution, there must be another motive for having tried to secure a deferred public prosecution agreement. Will the minister admit that they were just trying to protect their corporate cronies and not the jobs of the workers?
Mr. Speaker, in 2006, SNC-Lavalin illegally donated nearly $110,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada and its associations. Today, SNC-Lavalin needs help because it is in big trouble.The machinery was then set in motion. The company had more than 50 meetings with the government. Why?Over those two years, the company had 14 meetings with the Prime Minister's Office, or one meeting every two months. Why?The fact that the former justice minister will appear before the committee is something, and I look forward to hearing what she has to say. However, I would like to know why there were so many meetings with lobbyists.
Mr. Speaker, once again, the leader of the NDP met with SNC-Lavalin representatives. The leader of the Conservatives met with them also. The leaders of both parties met with them. Everyone knows this, and the leaders are not hiding it.We know that the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are doing their job. We, on this side of the House, firmly believe that they will do their job and ask questions, and that the witnesses will be able to respond.
Mr. Speaker, the director of public prosecutions has confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently.On this side of the House, the government has done its job properly and has followed all the rules and laws. We stand up for the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law. We know that this case was extensively discussed by the Premier of Quebec and many other individuals, including MPs. The case is currently before the Ethics Commissioner and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have confidence in our institutions and in the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The clerk confirmed that, at every opportunity, the Prime Minister clearly stated that this was a decision for the justice minister to take.Interestingly, the member opposite himself said he did not intend to harm SNC-Lavalin employees, but, in English, the member for Carleton said he wanted to shut down the company and was not afraid to say so. They need to be clear with the
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons often talks about what is happening at the justice committee.In fact, yesterday afternoon, retired judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond testified that all public officials must be able to point to lawful authority for their actions.In light of this, could the Prime Minister, who refuses to appear in committee, tell us whether he attempted to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with corruption, without regard for lawful authority?
Mr. Speaker, the government is continually trying to find new ways to justify the political interference in an ongoing court case by the Prime Minister and his key advisers. The law on this is actually very clear. If an organization, like SNC-Lavalin, is charged with bribery, then the law states, the prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest.The former attorney general made her decision. She said no, so why did the Prime Minister not take no for an answer?
Mr. Speaker, following the decision of the director of public prosecutions, there were three separate attempts to pressure the former attorney general. That pressure did not come from mere lackeys.First it was the Prime Minister, then his principal secretary, and finally Canada's top public servant. Those three individuals, the most powerful people in the Canadian government, put direct pressure on the former attorney general. The question is very simple, since we still have not had an answer.Was this matter discussed at cabinet, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, too many people skip the medicine they need because the prices are too high. All Canadians deserve coverage, but instead, the Liberals are cooking up a half-baked plan that leaves workers out. Do the Liberals not know that employer coverage is not what it used to be? Corporations have been rolling back benefits for working people, leaving them with not only less coverage but often with no coverage for the drugs they need. Canadians want a comprehensive, universal, single-payer pharmacare plan that covers everyone equally. Why are the Liberals refusing to listen?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.We can absolutely stand up for the workers, suppliers and retirees of a company like SNC-Lavalin while at the same time complying with ethics rules and all of the other legal rules surrounding these discussions.On this side of the House, we always stand up for workers in Quebec and across the country and for suppliers and retirees. That is what we are doing on this side of the House. We would like the opposition to talk about standing up for workers too from time to time.
Mr. Speaker, everyone in Canada deserves a safe, affordable place to call home, but the housing crisis is leaving many of us out in the cold. People need solutions now, not years from now. That is why Burnaby South elected Jagmeet Singh, a leader who understands the urgency of the housing crisis, unlike the Liberals, who fail to act. Canadians cannot wait any longer. Why are the Liberals so quick on their feet when their rich corporate friends need something, yet refuse to ensure safe, affordable housing for those who desperately need it now?
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record. 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. We on this side have increased resources to committees so that committees can do their work. Members from both sides sit on the justice committee. Justice committee members have come together to ask for witnesses to appear. Witnesses are appearing.I will remind the House and all Canadians what Canadians said no to. Canadians said no to the failed approach of austerity by the Conservatives, which their leader continues to fight for.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday's letter from the former justice minister shows the extraordinary steps she has had to take to force the Prime Minister's hand to lift the legal gag order so she can speak truth to a parliamentary committee. However, she is not the only person we need to hear from in the SNC-Lavalin scandal. We notice that there were numerous attempts by the Prime Minister's staff to pressure her into intervening in an independent legal investigation after it was found out that SNC was not eligible and they used a manifestly illegal argument, which was the economic interest.In the interests of fairness, will the Prime Minister agree that Katie Telford and Gerry Butts and the rest of his staff will also testify in this hearing?
Mr. Speaker, we know that cannot be their motivation. We know that because when they wrote the law they specifically excluded the national economic interest. They wrote the law and then tried to get the former attorney general to break the law. She said no. Apparently people in the Prime Minister's Office would not take no for an answer. Why would the Prime Minister not accept the decision of the independent prosecutor of Canada?
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Safety and it is a very direct question.Has any staff member or any minister been contacted by the RCMP with respect to the SNC-Lavalin investigation? The answer is simple: yes or no.
Mr. Speaker, there is a world of difference between one meeting and 50 meetings. Here is what we know. The director of public prosecutions formally rejected a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin on September 4. Two weeks later, on September 17, the Prime Minister met with the former justice minister to discuss the matter. The day after that meeting, SNC-Lavalin lobbyists managed to get four meetings with senior officials and ministers. Would the Minister of Finance or the Minister of International Trade Diversification, who each took one of those meetings, be willing to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to explain what those conversations were about?
Mr. Speaker, people across the country are struggling to afford their medications and struggling to make ends meet. Instead of helping these people, the Liberal government continues to tell them that they must wait.Unions are in Ottawa this week to urge the government to work on creating a universal pharmacare program that is fully funded for everyone. People clearly need a single-payer universal pharmacare system that provides equal coverage to everyone. When will this government take action?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives will continue to speculate. We know that is their approach. It was their approach for 10 years under Stephen Harper, and unfortunately that remains the case today.Canadians are paying attention. They have not forgotten the rule book that the Conservatives released so that they could undermine and destroy committees. We on this side increased resources to committees, so that committees could do their important work.What was confirmed by the justice committee is that when the Clerk of the Privy Council appeared at committee to answer questions, he said, 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.
Mr. Speaker, over 350 delegates from the Canadian Labour Congress are in Ottawa today to talk about pension security and pharmacare. They echoed similar concerns brought by the coalition of retiree organizations last week in Ottawa. It is clear that workers and retirees want the Liberals to finally take action to provide real pension security for seniors and to introduce a fully universal pharmacare program. Canadians are no longer buying the empty promises. They want solutions now. Are the Liberals listening? When will they finally take action?
Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Liberals' cover-up on this SNC-Lavalin scandal is that they are having trouble keeping their stories straight.The Clerk of the Privy Council testified last week that there was no discussion of the special deal for SNC-Lavalin at cabinet, but the Minister of National Revenue went on the radio and said that the SNC-Lavalin deal was discussed at cabinet. Only one of these people can be telling the truth. Which one of them is it?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have no respect for committees. Those of us on this side of the House know that members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights have called witnesses to appear. The witnesses are appearing and answering questions from members on both sides.We know this matter is currently before the Commissioner of Ethics and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We on this side of the House respect the work of the commissioner and the committee. Clearly the Conservatives do not.
Mr. Speaker, instead of respecting the former attorney general and the independence of her office, the Prime Minister launched a concerted campaign to change her mind, a concerted campaign to interfere with the independence of the office of the Attorney General. What lawful authority did he have to do that?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the justice committee, retired judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond testified that public officials must be able to point to lawful authority for their actions. What lawful authority did the Prime Minister have to conspire to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with bribery? What lawful authority?
Mr. Speaker, they will continue to speculate, but we, on this side of the House, are interested in the facts.The leader of the Conservative Party met with the company, as did the leader of the NDP. The Conservative deputy leader said in committee that she did not want to give the impression or go on the record as saying that there was anything wrong with meeting with SNC-Lavalin.We, on this side of the House, respect the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We respect the work of all committees. That is exactly why we increased resources to committees. We will not take the Conservative approach.
Mr. Speaker, somebody is going to have to answer this question, because on September 4, the director of public prosecutions actually informed SNC-Lavalin that it would not be receiving a deferred public prosecution agreement. However, the audited financial statements of SNC-Lavalin indicate that the company was advised by the director of PPSC in October 2018 that it would not be invited by the PPSC. Who in the Prime Minister's Office gave the assurance between September 4 and October 10 that there would not be a problem with the PPSC?
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for this genius pipeline-owning Prime Minister, the one who handed over $4.5 billion to a Texas oil company after its pipeline was thrown out of court. Now he is looking to spend another $10 billion to $15 billion of our money. The National Energy Board admits that this pipeline will hammer the environment, hurt indigenous relations and further wreck our climate. Governing is about making choices, and the Liberals are actually weighing the choice between protecting an orca population, repairing indigenous relations and actually fixing our carbon emissions, or building their pipeline. Which one is it going to be?
Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that, even though the legislation exists, there are ongoing court cases, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment.
Mr. Speaker, that line is getting old.One thing is for sure: the committee is ready, but the Prime Minister has refused to testify. We also know the Prime Minister and his team pressured the former attorney general to halt criminal proceedings against SNC-Lavalin.They did not see eye to eye on that, so what did the Prime Minister do? He gave her the boot.Now Canadians know that their self-styled feminist, transparent government is nothing but a joke.Once again, by what lawful authority did the Prime Minister attempt to halt criminal proceedings against SNC-Lavalin?
Mr. Speaker, the government is working now on changing the policy so that the company could get an administrative agreement even after conviction. In other words, it did not need to go about blocking the prosecution to achieve that goal. If it was not to protect the workers or the pensioners or any other innocent party, who does it leave that the government was actually protecting? Is it not clear that this company, which gave over $100,000 in illegal donations to the Liberal Party, is the real organization these Liberals are trying to protect?
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the year, when the Prime Minister fired the former attorney general of Canada, she wrote a letter that spoke volumes. She wrote that it was vital to maintain a separation between the criminal justice system and politics. However, that is the exact problem at the heart of the Liberal scandal that has been rattling our country for the past three weeks.We know that, on September 4, the director of public prosecutions said that she would be moving forward with the case against SNC-Lavalin.I have a perfectly simple question. Did cabinet discuss this matter, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, as I replied in my last answer, we are not aware of any such activity in relation to the RCMP and neither should we be, because the RCMP is completely independent.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his work on the pension security file.Our government takes pension security for seniors very seriously. It is our government that, after decades, has invested the time, energy and effort to get this right. That was included in the budget as well as my mandate letter. As a result of that, we have had consultations. We have had over 4,000 submissions. We want to have an evidence-based solution and ensure pensioners do not suffer unintended consequences. We are working hard and we are going to get this right.
Mr. Speaker, again it certainly feels like the Liberals are not in the business of answering the question. The question is quite simple and Canadians deserve to know. There is a crisis in the rule of law. This is not politics as usual. This is serious and Canadians know there is a deeper scandal.Again, has any current or former cabinet minister or Liberal staffer been contacted by the RCMP over the SNC-Lavalin affair or anything else pertaining to the former attorney general's portfolio, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Conservatives has just confirmed that there are two ongoing court cases. We on this side take seriously the responsibility of standing up for jobs and growing the economy. The justice official backgrounder on remediation agreements states that two of the main purposes for remediation agreements are, one, to hold the organization accountable for wrongdoing and, two, to reduce the harm that a criminal conviction of an organization could have for employees, pensioners, stakeholders and other third parties who did not take part in the offence. We will always protect Canadian jobs. That is what we do on this side.
Mr. Speaker, the illegal trip to the Aga Khan's billionaire island, the lucrative clam fishing contract directly awarded to an in-law, investigations on shady land deals in Brampton, four groping scandals, including the feminist Prime Minister himself, and now obstructing justice to prevent the rich executives accused of bribing the Gadhafi regime from facing a trial. Enough is enough.Why are there two sets of rules: one that benefits the Prime Minister and his cronies, and one that hurts everyone else?
Mr. Speaker, again, she is saying things that just are not true. We know they tried to interfere with an independent legal officer. They tried to get the former attorney general to change her mind. She said no. She said no on multiple occasions. In her view, and the view of the independent Crown prosecutor, SNC-Lavalin, based on serious corruption and bribery charges, did not qualify for one of these deals the way the Liberals themselves wrote it. Now they are trying to hide behind crocodile tears that no one is believing.Here is a very specific question for the House leader. Did anyone in the Liberal government communicate to SNC-Lavalin
Mr. Speaker, in Canada, we have the rule of law. In Canada, we have a system that works. Canadians can have confidence in that system. Members from both sides of the aisle sit on the justice committee. The member who asked the question is actually a member of the justice committee. He knows very well that when witnesses appear who have been asked to appear, witnesses are answering questions. We on this side have confidence in the work of the justice committee. It is really too bad that the member and his party do not.
Mr. Speaker, she is not going to get her honorary set of gold SNC cufflinks with excuses like that, because we are talking about illegal interventions by the Prime Minister's Office. The Prime Minister and the clerk met with the former justice minister on September 17. She said no. The PMO official met her on December 5. She said no. The PMO staff met with her staff on December 18. They said no. Then the Clerk of the Privy Council met with her on December 19. She said no and was removed from her position soon after.In the interest of corruption, I ask the Prime Minister this. When does no mean no for the Liberal Party?
Mr. Speaker, once again, we on this side will always respect the work of committees. We on this side will always respect the independent judicial system. We on this side will always respect the independence of officers of Parliament. We on this side will always protect Canadian jobs and stand up for them. We know our plan is working, and that is why Canadians have created over 800,000 jobs since we took office. What is the record of the Conservatives? They had the least amount of growth, the worst growth since the Great Depression. Now we know why. Because they will not stand up for Canadian jobs.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the justice committee, a former judge testified that the RCMP integrity unit should thoroughly examine the Prime Minister's alleged interference with SNC-Lavalin's criminal trial. I have a simple question. Has the Prime Minister or anyone in the PMO been contacted by the RCMP?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know the truth about the SNC-Lavalin case.However, yesterday, the Prime Minister and the Liberal members refused the request for the Prime Minister to testify before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.Will he answer a simple question? Did anyone in the PMO or any of the ministers close to him assure SNC-Lavalin that there would not be a criminal trial, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that if he had allowed SNC-Lavalin to face criminal conviction, the company would go out of business, because corporate criminals are banned from federal contracts. But wait; in December 2015, the government gave SNC a deal exempting it from the ban, despite criminal charges. Now the government is changing the policy to exempt SNC even if it is convicted. If the Prime Minister plans to allow SNC to get contracts, even after a conviction, why did he need to intervene to stop the company from going to trial in the first place?
Mr. Speaker, once again, it is not surprising that the Conservatives will undermine the work of committees. Once again, it is not surprising that the Conservatives will undermine the work of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. They did it for 10 years under Stephen Harper. Today they have chosen a new leader, but it still remains the same party as Stephen Harper's. Canadians can have confidence in their institutions. We on this side will let them do their work. They are meeting. They are calling forward witnesses. Witnesses are appearing and answering those tough questions. Members from both sides are present.
Mr. Speaker, that was not the question that was asked. Canadians deserve an answer to this very simple question. Has the RCMP contacted the PMO or the Prime Minister about this alleged interference in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin?
Mr. Speaker, the justice official backgrounder on remediation agreements states two of the main purposes for remediation agreements: one, to hold the organization accountable for wrongdoing; and, two, to reduce the harm a criminal conviction of an organization could have for employees, pensioners, shareholders and other third parties who did not take part in the offence.The record shows that the leader of the Conservative Party met with the company. We know that the leader of the NDP met with the company. We know the deputy leader herself said on the record that she disagreed that there is anything wrong with meeting the company.We on this side will focus on Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, SNC-Lavalin just lost $1.6 billion. In real terms, this amount represents jobs lost in Quebec. What is the opposition talking about? It is talking about the Prime Minister and his bad relationship with the former minister of justice. What is the opposition talking about? It is talking about the Prime Minister and his bad relationships. What is the Prime Minister talking about? He is talking about who he can blame for his fiasco. The real issue is getting lost. Without a remediation agreement, Quebec will lose a head office and thousands of jobs.When will the Minister of Justice sign a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin?
Mr. Speaker, I feel like the hon. House leader is being paid by the word today.I would say this. I have very few words on this matter. What I would like to know is this.I am sorry. I cannot
Mr. Speaker, it is the practice of the government to put in place administrative agreements with companies while criminal proceedings are under way. This administrative agreement will terminate if there is a criminal conviction. In the meantime, we cannot comment on any ongoing court cases.