2019-02-21

Mr. Speaker, then the Prime Minister should lift the privilege. The poor Liberals are without Gerry Butts to write their lines for them. Yesterday the former justice minister stood in the House not once, but twice, and told her colleagues and every member of the House that she is being silenced in her ability by the Prime Minister. His treatment of her is not just spiteful, not just pusillanimous; this is about the exercise of power and protecting his friends and his insiders. One woman with integrity is standing in his path. What is he afraid of? He should let her speak her truth and her power to him.

Mr. Speaker, we learned from this morning's PBO report that the Liberals misled veterans with their new pension for life, which is actually less generous for the most seriously injured veterans. Worse, throughout this whole SNC-Lavalin scandal, veterans are losing out because the Prime Minister has yet to appoint a veterans affairs minister. The revolving door of Liberal and Conservative ministers is disrespectful, with eight ministers in nine years. It is heartbreaking to see veterans sacrifice their lives while consecutive governments will not properly invest in services that veterans deserve. Why are the Liberals leaving veterans out in the cold?

Mr. Speaker, our country is strengthened by its diversity, and members of all communities in Canada must feel safe and be safe. We know that we are not immune to hate-motivated crimes. Communities across the country, including my riding of Oakville North—Burlington, have witnessed these cowardly acts.Can the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness tell the House what he is doing to help communities at risk of hate-motivated crime improve their security infrastructure?

Mr. Speaker, we can always count on the Liberal Party of Canada to come up with a good political scandal by bending the rules to help out their corrupt millionaire friends. The Liberals always deliver the goods and even throw in an extended warranty.First Gerald Butts resigns, and now the former justice minister is saying that she was inappropriately pressured. That information was leaked by cabinet.If the Prime Minister is afraid of a public inquiry, can he at least allow the former minister to give us her side of the story?

Mr. Speaker, acts of hate are intended to drive wedges of fear and division. Such acts can be a jarring reminder that the inclusive and tolerant Canada we want is a precious and delicate work in progress that we dare not take for granted.Canadians must be free to practise their faith and culture without fear. To that end, we have doubled federal funding for the security infrastructure program to help pay for security upgrades for communities at risk. We have significantly broadened access to the program. More new projects will be announced this spring.

Mr. Speaker, what is she talking about? The Liberals claim this whole thing is about protecting jobs, but where were they for Sears workers? Where were they for Aveos, for Rona and for GM workers?If the Liberals actually cared about working people, maybe they could start jailing their corporate friends when they break the law. Instead, the Liberals are too busy getting them sweetheart deals. Liberals claim to care about the rule of law, but instead, in their world there is one set of laws for the wealthy and well connected and there is another set for everybody else.Just yesterday, the Prime Minister voted against an inquiry while his former attorney general properly abstained. Does the Prime Minister not get conflict of interest, or does he not care?

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to know what happened in committee this morning. Here is my question.On September 4, the director of public prosecutions informed SNC-Lavalin that its case was going to trial. On September 17, the former attorney general told the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council that she would not overrule her director's decision. That should have been the end of it.Why did the Clerk of the Privy Council, the PMO and even the Prime Minister himself hound the Attorney General of Canada to change her decision?

Mr. Speaker, in the ongoing saga of the SNC-Lavalin scandal, Canadians are watching the government melt down in front of their very eyes.According to yet another bombshell report from The Globe and Mail, the former attorney general told the cabinet this week that she was improperly pressured to get SNC-Lavalin a sweetheart plea deal in its corruption case.These Liberals promised transparency, but all we see is cover-up. They promised to work for all Canadians, but it is the wealthy and well connected who always get what they want.With obstruction of justice allegations directed at the Prime Minister's own office, how can Liberals actually stand up and stand in the way of a proper inquiry?

Mr. Speaker, it has been nine months since Trump imposed the destructive tariffs on steel and aluminum, which have forced companies to close shop and workers to lose their jobs.Liberals keep trying to assure Canadians that they have a plan, but the tariffs are still there. This is the same old story: “Do not worry, we are working on it, and we care about jobs.” After months of witness testimony at the trade committee, we now know that their plan is a failure, a failure to protect communities and jobs, a failure to remove the tariffs.How much more do Canadians need to lose before this Prime Minister will act?

Mr. Speaker, the former attorney general told cabinet this week, according to The Globe and Mail, that she faced inappropriate pressure to interfere with the trial into the criminal charges against SNC-Lavalin. Subsection 139(1) of the Criminal Code makes it an indictable offence, punishable by up to two years in prison, to obstruct the course of justice in a judicial proceeding. Has any member of the cabinet who bore witness to the former attorney general's remarks this week passed them along to the RCMP for investigation?

Mr. Speaker, it was certainly welcome news more than a year ago when the current government announced that we would have a Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise. For too long, Canadians have been horrified by human rights abuses at the hands of Canadian mining companies and their actions overseas that bring shame to this country.The Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise was supposed to be a model for the world. It is a year later. Where is it?

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the interactions today, I have one simple question for the justice minister, and I would like the Attorney General to offer a legal opinion on behalf of Canadians. Can cabinet confidentiality be used to cover up criminal actions?

Mr. Speaker, there were incredibly troubling admissions made at this morning's justice committee, so many that I do not have enough time to go through them all. However, we are going to fight to do better and make sure we get this on the record.This morning, the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed that he and the Prime Minister sought to influence the decision of the attorney general in the matter of bribery and fraud charges against SNC-Lavalin. Could the Prime Minister confirm that this indeed is the case?

Mr. Speaker, the justice committee is doing its work. It has called its witnesses.Today we saw many questions being asked, and we heard many answers.It is important for us to point out that the Conservatives keep talking out of both sides of their mouths. In French, they say they have no intention of hurting the SNC-Lavalin employees, as the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said. However, in English, it is quite a different story. The members, like the member for Carleton, want to shut down that company, and they are not even trying to hide it.

Mr. Speaker, they find it funny that 300,000 plus children have been lifted out of poverty through the Canada child benefit. The Conservatives chose to tax that benefit. We believe that families with children, who need the most, should get the most. We will keep fighting for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I am heartbroken for all the athletes who have suffered. Let me be clear. There is zero tolerance for abuse, discrimination or harassment of any kind in sport. That is why last June, we introduced strong measures to end abuse, discrimination and harassment in sport. Last week, for the first time in our country's history, a declaration was signed by all sport ministers from coast to coast to coast. The Red Deer declaration will drive a systemic culture shift to prevent abuse, discrimination and harassment in sport.

Mr. Speaker, here is the simple question we have been asking all day yesterday and today, and to which we still have not received an answer. Who called for the meeting between the Prime Minister and the former attorney general on September 17? Who asked for that meeting?

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to know whether, with the ultimate goal of protecting jobs, the Prime Minister or anyone from his office put any pressure on Canada's justice system.It is not complicated.On September 17, a meeting took place between the Prime Minister and the former attorney general of Canada.We want to know who asked for that meeting.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the illegal U.S. tariffs, we have imposed Canada's strongest trade actions ever. Over 40 American groups, representing dozens of U.S. industries, have called for the removal of the U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs, citing the impact of our retaliatory actions. Recently, a senior Republican said that our tariffs are having such an impact that the U.S. must lift its steel tariffs before Congress looks at the new NAFTA deal. Our program is working.

Mr. Speaker, the question is not whether the discussion was appropriate. The question is, in the wake of the decision made on September 4 and the meeting at the Prime Minister's Office or with the Prime Minister on September 17, who asked for that meeting? Was it the Prime Minister, or was it the former attorney general? It is not complicated.

—like that member is now choosing to do.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader met with representatives of the company. The NDP leader met with representatives of the company. Today, the Conservative deputy leader herself said that she did not want to give the impression that she thinks there is anything wrong with meeting with SNC-Lavalin. On this side of the House, we respect the independence of the committee and the judicial system. We see the committee doing its work.

Mr. Speaker, the decision to go to trial had already been communicated on September 4. The Prime Minister held a meeting with the former attorney general on September 17. At that meeting, the former attorney general refused to stop the trial.I have a simple question, and I do not need a lesson on the non-answers we got from the justice minister at the justice committee. Why did the Prime Minister, his cabinet and the Clerk of the Privy Council continue to put pressure on the former attorney general after the September 17 meeting?

Mr. Speaker, to speak truth to power, a citizen cannot ask anything more from an elected official, yet when the former attorney general attempted to speak with her cabinet colleagues about political interference in a justice case, the Prime Minister left her sitting outside his office for two hours while he dithered about the optics of letting her into his domain. In that meeting she spoke truth to power, and he came out and said he was disappointed in her. Canadians are disappointed in him because she is ready to speak her truth to his power. What is he so afraid of?

Mr. Speaker, as I responded two days ago, we have no knowledge of any such activity.

Mr. Speaker, Sport Canada's policy to prevent harassment and abuse in sport has been ineffective. Each week brings new headlines detailing old or new abuses that have come to light. Athletes and sports organizations are calling on this minister to establish an independent body able to investigate abuse and harassment. Instead of listening, she announced yet another code of conduct. Will this minister stop stalling and establish an independent investigative body for abuse allegations in all sports?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to have confidence in their institutions, but the problem is that the Liberal government is attacking our institutions by interfering in a matter before the courts. That is not right.According to today's Globe and Mail, the former attorney general says she was subjected to improper pressure. That is obstruction of justice.How can the government tolerate that? It is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, the independent director of public prosecutions made a decision to proceed to trial on a case of corporate criminal corruption. Then the former attorney general decided to let the decision stand. Then the Prime Minister, his cabinet and Michael Wernick tried to get her to change her mind. She did not. Then she was fired. Does the Prime Minister understand that neither he nor Michael Wernick gets to define what constitutes inappropriate pressure?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister tried to stop criminal proceedings. The former attorney general said no.My question is simple. Why did the Prime Minister, the PMO and the Clerk of the Privy Council continue to interfere in the case after the September 17 meeting? Why?

Mr. Speaker, on September 4, 2018, the director of public prosecutions decided to move forward with the case against SNC-Lavalin. Two weeks later, the Prime Minister met with the then attorney general to discuss this file. The next day, the multinational's lobbyists met with the Minister of Finance and the Clerk of the Privy Council. On December 5, 2018, Gerald Butts met with the then attorney general to do exactly the same thing as the Prime Minister.What was the purpose of these discussions, if not to try to change the then attorney general's mind?Does this not clearly show that there are some rules for regular people and other rules for the Liberal Party's friends?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' poverty reduction bill does not go far enough and does not do enough. I am not the only one saying so. We are hearing this from a thousand organizations and individuals from across the country. They are calling on the government to show leadership and to revise its bill so we can achieve the objectives.The fight against poverty is not a public relations exercise.When will the minister listen to them and finally bring forward concrete new measures to make a real difference in the fight against poverty?

Mr. Speaker, for the past two weeks, the government has been getting bogged down in its versions, secrets, resignations and half-truths.Why did the Minister of Veterans Affairs resign? We do not know.Why did the Prime Minister's advisor resign? We do not know.If the Attorney General can reach an agreement with SNC-Lavalin, why is he choosing not to do so? We do not know that either.Once again, thousands of jobs are on the line in Quebec. Why is there no remediation agreement?

Mr. Speaker, on September 4, Canada's top prosecutor decided that SNC-Lavalin's case would go to trial. On September 17, in the presence of the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council, the former attorney general indicated that she would not intervene to try to change the top prosecutor's decision.What followed was an unsolicited and coordinated effort by the Prime Minister and his minions to influence an ongoing legal process, and when the then attorney general did not co-operate, he fired her. In what world does this interference not constitute a clear attempt to obstruct justice?

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister met with the former attorney general on September 17. We also now know that the Clerk of the Privy Council was present at that meeting and that there was discussion of a matter before the court.Here is a simple question that may one day be asked in court: Does the Prime Minister still challenge the former attorney general's belief that this was an attempt to improperly influence her?

Mr. Speaker, the act empowers the attorney general to sign remediation agreements. A remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin would allow taxpayers to recover hundreds of millions of dollars, which we really need, and it could help save thousands of jobs in Quebec and Canada. We know that the minister wants to sign one. We just want to know why he did not simply do so instead of making such a mess of things over the past few weeks. Why jeopardize thousands of jobs in Quebec?

Mr. Speaker, now she is quoting a politician about an incident he just admitted he did not witness. Why not get back to the people who did witness her? The former attorney general told cabinet this week, according to The Globe and Mail, that she faced inappropriate pressure to interfere with the criminal trial of SNC-Lavalin. If that happened, it may have violated sections of the Criminal Code. Did anyone in the cabinet refer her allegation to the RCMP for investigation?

Mr. Speaker, it is now very clear that the Prime Minister cannot be trusted. We know now that he met with the former attorney general after the independent prosecutor decided to proceed with the trial. We also know that the former attorney general told the Prime Minister and his office that she would not intervene. It should have ended there, but it did not.Can the Prime Minister tell us why on earth he and his government would embark on an unsolicited, coordinated and sustained effort to change her position? How is this not political interference?

Mr. Speaker, on September 4, after carefully reviewing the case, the director of public prosecutions decided to pursue criminal charges.Why did the Prime Minister choose to meet his former attorney general and justice minister 13 days later, on September 17? Why?

Mr. Speaker, the member seems to believe that if he raises his voice, all of a sudden there is more validity to what he is saying. The record has stated, as I have said and will continue to say, that the justice committee is doing the work. The member can raise his voice louder if he wants to, but the justice committee has asked for witnesses to appear. Members have asked questions. Witnesses are answering questions.It was last week that 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”.

Mr. Speaker, justice committee members have asked for witnesses to appear. They are appearing. I have confidence in members on both sides to ask tough questions. They will receive the answers they are looking for. Just last week, the director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Yukon for his amazing work. Our language represents who we are. It is how we tell our stories to our children. Most indigenous languages are in danger and many have been lost. We need to act and we need to act now, hand in hand with indigenous peoples.I hope all parties will join indigenous peoples and pass this bill, which recognizes indigenous languages as a fundamental right. This is a clear response to calls to action 13, 14 and 15. Furthermore, this bill provides for stable, long-term funding.Let us do this together.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear. It is obvious that the Conservatives do not have much respect for our institutions. On this side of the House, we respect the work of committees. We respect the independence of our judiciary. We will continue to work with them.That is exactly why we increased resources for committees so that they can do their important work. We respect our institutions, and we know it is important for Canadians to have confidence in their institutions, too.

Mr. Speaker, the question is simple.The day after September 4, 2018, after the director of public prosecutions launched a criminal case against SNC-Lavalin, ministers and their staff met with people from the company. I am talking about people in the Department of Finance and the Department of International Trade, the office of the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's Office.If the decision had already been made by the director of public prosecutions, why did the Prime Minister think it was appropriate to meet with his former attorney general?

Mr. Speaker, I agree with one thing the member opposite said, namely that it is important for Canadians to have confidence in their institutions. That is exactly what we on this side of the House believe. That is why we respect the independence of the judicial system. That is why we respect the work of committees, and they are doing their work.We also respect the office of the commissioner, which is doing its job, and we will continue to respect it because we know that Canadians must have confidence in their institutions.

Mr. Speaker, as Attorney General for Canada, I will not answer a legal question or give a legal opinion on the floor of the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to our government that Canadian companies around the world respect human rights and are operating with the highest possible ethical standards.We are moving forward with appointing the first-ever ombudsperson for corporate social responsibility to help reflect our core values in the world and deliver on our trade agenda. The ombudsperson will work to ensure that Canadian firms operating abroad exercise leadership in ethical, social and environmental practices. The appointment will be announced soon.

Mr. Speaker, that member knows better than most that we have an Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That office is doing its work. We respect its independence. We think we should let that office do its work.The member talks about Canadians. He talks about the importance of employees. Let us talk about this government's record. We have made strategic investments in Canadians, bringing in 800,000 jobs.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the justice committee has asked for witnesses to appear. Witnesses will appear. Members from both sides will be able to ask questions. Witnesses will answer those questions. I understand that the former attorney general has also been asked to appear at committee. Members from both sides will be able to ask questions. The former attorney general will be able to answer them. I am confident she will.

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the Government of Canada tabled Canada's first indigenous languages bill. This is a historic step in rebuilding Canada's relationship with first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples as we continue the dialogue on reconciliation.Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism please explain to the House how this bill would help indigenous peoples defend their language rights and ensure that indigenous languages are transmitted to future generations?

Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between getting answers and not liking the answers, but we will let the Conservatives figure that one out.As for the work this week, this afternoon we will commence report stage debate on Bill C-83, the administrative segregation legislation. Tomorrow, we will deal with report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-77, the victims bill of rights.Monday shall be an allotted day. Tuesday, if need be, we will resume debate at report stage of Bill C-83, on administrative segregation.Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I am pleased to request the designation of an order of the day for the Minister of Finance to present Budget 2019 at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, March 19.

Mr. Speaker, as the record shows, the Conservative leader met with representatives of the company. The NDP leader met with representatives of the company. Today, the Conservative deputy leader herself said, “I do not want that impression to be on the record that I think there is anything wrong with meeting with SNC-Lavalin...”The Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed “At every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the prime minister made it clear that this was the decision for the minister of justice to take.”We will continue to respect the independence of our judicial system as well as the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to clearly state that, from day one, our government has stressed the importance of giving everyone a real and fair chance to succeed in Canada. That is why, in July 2016, we implemented the Canada child benefit, which lifts 300,000 children and 200,000 parents out of poverty every month. By April 2019, 650,000 people will have been lifted out of poverty thanks to the measures we have implemented.

Mr. Speaker, it was revealed that at the September 17 meeting, the former attorney general unequivocally stated that she would not overturn the decision of the director of public prosecutions, and yet following that, on December 5, the principal secretary to the Prime Minister, and then on December 19, the Clerk of the Privy Council himself, urged the minister to change her mind. If that is not pressure, then what is?

Mr. Speaker, it has been exactly two weeks since The Globe and Mail revealed this new Liberal scandal. In the past two weeks, what have we seen? We have seen this government get into a comedy of errors, a minister slam the door on cabinet, and the Prime Minister's principal secretary step down.Today, another layer was added to this Liberal scandal. We found out that the former attorney general told cabinet that she was pressured inappropriately. That is known as obstruction of justice.Why is the government tolerating that?

Mr. Speaker, we know that Canadians should have confidence in their institutions. We know that Liberal members have confidence in the independence of the judicial system and the work that the committees are doing. We have confidence in the officers of Parliament. We know that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is investigating this matter.We also know that the justice committee is looking into this matter. Members from both sides have been working very hard to call in witnesses. They are asking challenging questions. They are receiving answers. I think we should let them do their important work. We have confidence in committees.

Mr. Speaker, as I explained at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the question of solicitor-client privilege is complex. We want to be transparent. That is why we are working hard to get an answer so the former minister can have her say.

Mr. Speaker, the member can refer to it as he pleases, but the fact remains that today, at the justice committee, the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed, “At every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was the decision for the minister of justice to take.” We on this side respect the work of committees. We know that members are asking tough questions. They wanted to have witnesses appear. They have worked together to have those witnesses appear. We will not undermine the work they are doing—

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.He asked the same thing in committee today. The answer is the same. As Attorney General of Canada, I cannot comment, as that would have an impact on the legal proceedings currently under way.

Mr. Speaker, I can definitely state that there is obviously a different approach with this Prime Minister and this government than was the case under the previous government. We have conversations all the time. When it comes to the lives of Canadians and the important decisions we need to take, it is important that we take a whole-of-government approach and that every minister represents them. We work with members on both sides, because the voices of their constituents need to be heard. Therefore, when asked at justice committee today if it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials to discuss the matter with him, the Attorney General confirmed that those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.Talking to each other, communicating, is important. It is appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, these are just Liberal talking points.

They find it funny—

Mr. Speaker, what we know and what is undisputed is that subsequent to the September 4 decision that was delivered to SNC-Lavalin, there were numerous meetings between the Prime Minister and the former attorney general, and even between the Clerk of the Privy Council and the former attorney general.We have also heard on numerous occasions, through media reports, that the former attorney general felt pressured. We are hearing from the Prime Minister that his description is that it was not pressure but vigorous discussion. Again, we seem to have it that the Prime Minister sees things one way and the former attorney general sees them a different way.

Mr. Speaker, members from both sides of the House sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. They are asking these questions and getting answers. Everyone can listen to these discussions.Today, when asked whether it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and his officials to discuss the matter with the Attorney General, the Attorney General said that those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians must have confidence in their institutions.We know that the committees are doing their work. We are the government that increased resources to help them do just that. Members on both sides asked for witnesses to appear. Today, these witnesses appeared at public hearings, and the members' questions and the answers were public. I think we need to respect the independence of the committees and the judicial system.

Mr. Speaker, as Attorney General of Canada, I am going to defend the principles of cabinet privilege, cabinet confidence, as well as solicitor-client privilege. One cannot just cherry-pick when it is convenient to let that go. When the question was asked of me this morning, the answer to the question was that it was covered by cabinet confidence. I have now been released by Mr. Wernick in his answer and I can confirm that I left the meeting. I recused myself from the meeting of my own accord.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand that my role as the Attorney General of Canada is to protect Canada's legal institutions and that is what I am going to do. That is my top priority as Attorney General.One of those institutions is the protection of litigation. Litigation privilege is very important. I cannot influence a case that is before the courts.

Mr. Speaker, as I said a number of times in the House and before the committee earlier today, the question of privilege, in the words of the former attorney general, is complex and multi-layered. We are doing our best. The committee is doing its work. We are doing our best to study that question to allow the former attorney general to speak, but we have not yet resolved the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I know the government House leader was quite busy today during question period not answering questions, but I think this one she will be able to answer. I have full confidence that she will be able to answer what we will be doing for the remainder of this week in the House, as well as next week.

Mr. Speaker, if an attorney general receives evidence of illegal activity within the government, he has an obligation to act. I asked the Attorney General this morning at justice committee whether or not he felt he needed to act based upon what was told to him at cabinet by the former attorney general. He did not respond. However, the Clerk of the Privy Council has now confirmed for us that the minister was not present and recused himself from that part of the cabinet meeting.Could the minister tell us if the Prime Minister told him to leave the room?

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court, in Krieger, stated, “It is a constitutional principle that the Attorneys General of this country must act independently of partisan concerns when exercising their delegated sovereign authority to initiate, continue or terminate prosecutions.” In the face of that, what in the world were the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's principal secretary and the Clerk of the Privy Council doing talking to the attorney general to overturn the decision of the public prosecutor?

Mr. Speaker, here is the chronology. On September 4, a final decision is given by the director of public prosecutions. On September 17, there is a meeting between the minister as she then was, the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister, where she asked whether or not she was being directed, and she was told no. After that, there is a meeting on September 18, between SNC-Lavalin and the Clerk of the Privy Council. On December 5, there are discussions, again, between the former attorney general and the former private secretary to the Prime Minister. On December 19, the Clerk of the Privy Council picked up the phone to pressure the attorney general in her decision—

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, it is this government that increased resources for committees, to enable committees to do their important work.The member was asking to have witnesses appear. Members from both sides got together to ensure that witnesses could appear. We see today that those meetings are taking place in public. We can see that members are asking questions. We can see that witnesses are answering questions. I believe we should respect their work.We respect the independence of the judicial system. We will continue to respect officers of Parliament. That is what we do on this side. The member can choose what he chooses to do.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his passion and work on this file. Pension security is very important to our government. We made a commitment in the 2018 budget, as well as in my mandate letter, to consult with Canadians, and that is exactly what we have done.I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have submitted contributions to this consultation process. Our government wants an evidence-based solution to this issue. To do that, we are going to take a look at what has been submitted and come up with an evidence-based solution. We do not want a Band-Aid solution with unintended consequences. We want the right solution, and that is what we are going to deliver.

Mr. Speaker, a coalition of organizations representing Canada's retirees was on the Hill yesterday to urge the Liberal government to protect workers' pensions in case of corporate insolvency. It also called on the government to create a national pension insurance plan and to change federal insolvency legislation to give workers' pensions priority status. The NDP unequivocally supports these initiatives and has been asking the minister over and over to ensure pension security.Will the Liberals finally listen to Canadian workers and retirees and protect their pensions, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, Canadian highways play a key role in moving our economy forward. In fact, they are vital to rural and remote communities specifically. Good condition of these roads allows Canadians and goods to move more efficiently across the country and help our economy continue to grow. This is particularly crucial in my home province of Manitoba, as trade is an important part of our diversified economy.Could the Minister of Rural Economic Development update the House on what investments are being made for the highway network of Manitoba?

Mr. Speaker, I stand here very proud to be the acting Minister of Veterans Affairs. Our government is committed to ensuring that our veterans receive the benefits and support they deserve. The needs of Canada's veterans have changed significantly over the past hundred years, when the Pension Act was introduced, and our support needs to change as well.Thanks to our government's $10-billion additional investment, all veterans today, including the most vulnerable, are better off than they were under the previous Harper government.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, because I keep saying it, but I am not sure if it is registering with the members opposite. Conservatives have members from their party present at the justice committee as well. The justice committee is doing really important work. Members have been working together to ensure that they can get a list of witnesses to appear so that members can ask tough questions and get these answers. We see that work happening today, and we see it as important work. Today, when asked at the justice committee if it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials to discuss the matter with the attorney general, the Attorney General confirmed that those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record. Just last week the director of public prosecutions confirmed that prosecutors in every place “exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”Earlier today, the deputy minister of justice confirmed that “there is no direct communication, in any specific case, between the PMO and the DPP.”Today, at the justice committee, the Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that “At every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was the decision for the Minister of Justice to take.”

Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed today that months after the former attorney general had made it clear she would not interfere in an ongoing court proceeding involving SNC-Lavalin, the Prime Minister refused to accept that decision and continued to pressure the former attorney general to change her mind. The director of public prosecutions had made a decision. The former attorney general had made a decision. Why did the Prime Minister then make the decision to try to obstruct justice in an ongoing legal proceeding?

Mr. Speaker, once again, on this side of the aisle, the government respects the independence of the work that committees do. We respect the independence of officers of Parliament. We respect the independence of the judicial system. Today, we see that the justice committee is hearing from witnesses. Members are asking tough questions, and they are receiving answers. Just last week, the director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case “exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration”. I think the member on the other side is projecting from his experience under the previous government.

Mr. Speaker, let's look at the facts. The director of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada confirmed that prosecutors, in every case, exercise their discretion independently. The deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication, in any specific case, between the PMO and the PPSC. 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 make.

Mr. Speaker, let us review what we heard at the justice committee this morning. When asked if it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials to discuss the matter with the attorney general, the Attorney General confirmed, “Those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.” When asked about conversations with cabinet colleagues in his role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General and whether they were appropriate, the Attorney General answered, “Absolutely.” We always have and we always will, on this side of the aisle, respect our institutions.

Mr. Speaker, we see the justice committee doing its work. We see it bringing forward witnesses and having these conversations. I believe that the committee should be able to do its work independently. Members from all parties are present for that work. We are the party that increased resources to committees so that they could do this work. Members from both sides asked for witnesses to appear. They were able to work together to bring forward a list of witnesses. Let us let the committee members do their work.

Mr. Speaker, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, members from both sides worked together to have witnesses appear. That started today. We can see members from both sides asking questions and witnesses answering those questions.I think that the member across the way should have faith in the committee process. It was our government that increased resources to committees. On this side of the House, we respect and will continue to respect the work of committees.

Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the Privy Council also today at the justice committee 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.”

Mr. Speaker, it is important that Canadians have confidence in their institutions.Here is what we heard today at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. When asked if it is appropriate for the Prime Minister and his officials to discuss the matter with the attorney general, the Attorney General of Canada confirmed that those kinds of conversations would be appropriate. When asked if it is appropriate to have conversations with his cabinet colleagues as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, he replied, “Absolutely”.We respect our institutions and always will.

Mr. Speaker, we have always respected the work that committees do and that is exactly why we are the government that increased resources at committee. Members from both sides have been asking for witnesses to appear. Committee is doing that important work.Last week, the director of public prosecutions confirmed that prosecutors in every case, “exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”Today, 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...”

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley for his question and for his hard work.Our government understands that modern, safe and efficient highways play a crucial role in the economy of Canada. That is why we have announced over $140 million for eight highways to help Manitoba businesses improve competitiveness and improve commutes for Canadians. This is an important investment, and the kind of investment that will continue to make Canada prosper.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader met with representatives of the company. The NDP leader met with representatives of the company. Today, the Conservative deputy leader herself said that she did not want to give the impression that she thinks there is anything wrong with meeting with SNC-Lavalin. On this side of the House, we respect the independence of the committee and the judicial system. We see the committee doing its work.

Mr. Speaker, then the Prime Minister should lift the privilege. The poor Liberals are without Gerry Butts to write their lines for them. Yesterday the former justice minister stood in the House not once, but twice, and told her colleagues and every member of the House that she is being silenced in her ability by the Prime Minister. His treatment of her is not just spiteful, not just pusillanimous; this is about the exercise of power and protecting his friends and his insiders. One woman with integrity is standing in his path. What is he afraid of? He should let her speak her truth and her power to him.

Mr. Speaker, it has been nine months since Trump imposed the destructive tariffs on steel and aluminum, which have forced companies to close shop and workers to lose their jobs.Liberals keep trying to assure Canadians that they have a plan, but the tariffs are still there. This is the same old story: “Do not worry, we are working on it, and we care about jobs.” After months of witness testimony at the trade committee, we now know that their plan is a failure, a failure to protect communities and jobs, a failure to remove the tariffs.How much more do Canadians need to lose before this Prime Minister will act?

Mr. Speaker, now she is quoting a politician about an incident he just admitted he did not witness. Why not get back to the people who did witness her? The former attorney general told cabinet this week, according to The Globe and Mail, that she faced inappropriate pressure to interfere with the criminal trial of SNC-Lavalin. If that happened, it may have violated sections of the Criminal Code. Did anyone in the cabinet refer her allegation to the RCMP for investigation?

Mr. Speaker, as I explained at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the question of solicitor-client privilege is complex. We want to be transparent. That is why we are working hard to get an answer so the former minister can have her say.

Mr. Speaker, for the past two weeks, the government has been getting bogged down in its versions, secrets, resignations and half-truths.Why did the Minister of Veterans Affairs resign? We do not know.Why did the Prime Minister's advisor resign? We do not know.If the Attorney General can reach an agreement with SNC-Lavalin, why is he choosing not to do so? We do not know that either.Once again, thousands of jobs are on the line in Quebec. Why is there no remediation agreement?

Mr. Speaker, to speak truth to power, a citizen cannot ask anything more from an elected official, yet when the former attorney general attempted to speak with her cabinet colleagues about political interference in a justice case, the Prime Minister left her sitting outside his office for two hours while he dithered about the optics of letting her into his domain. In that meeting she spoke truth to power, and he came out and said he was disappointed in her. Canadians are disappointed in him because she is ready to speak her truth to his power. What is he so afraid of?

Mr. Speaker, the former attorney general told cabinet this week, according to The Globe and Mail, that she faced inappropriate pressure to interfere with the trial into the criminal charges against SNC-Lavalin. Subsection 139(1) of the Criminal Code makes it an indictable offence, punishable by up to two years in prison, to obstruct the course of justice in a judicial proceeding. Has any member of the cabinet who bore witness to the former attorney general's remarks this week passed them along to the RCMP for investigation?

Mr. Speaker, we can always count on the Liberal Party of Canada to come up with a good political scandal by bending the rules to help out their corrupt millionaire friends. The Liberals always deliver the goods and even throw in an extended warranty.First Gerald Butts resigns, and now the former justice minister is saying that she was inappropriately pressured. That information was leaked by cabinet.If the Prime Minister is afraid of a public inquiry, can he at least allow the former minister to give us her side of the story?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister tried to stop criminal proceedings. The former attorney general said no.My question is simple. Why did the Prime Minister, the PMO and the Clerk of the Privy Council continue to interfere in the case after the September 17 meeting? Why?

Mr. Speaker, we learned from this morning's PBO report that the Liberals misled veterans with their new pension for life, which is actually less generous for the most seriously injured veterans. Worse, throughout this whole SNC-Lavalin scandal, veterans are losing out because the Prime Minister has yet to appoint a veterans affairs minister. The revolving door of Liberal and Conservative ministers is disrespectful, with eight ministers in nine years. It is heartbreaking to see veterans sacrifice their lives while consecutive governments will not properly invest in services that veterans deserve. Why are the Liberals leaving veterans out in the cold?

Mr. Speaker, on September 4, after carefully reviewing the case, the director of public prosecutions decided to pursue criminal charges.Why did the Prime Minister choose to meet his former attorney general and justice minister 13 days later, on September 17? Why?

Mr. Speaker, in response to the illegal U.S. tariffs, we have imposed Canada's strongest trade actions ever. Over 40 American groups, representing dozens of U.S. industries, have called for the removal of the U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs, citing the impact of our retaliatory actions. Recently, a senior Republican said that our tariffs are having such an impact that the U.S. must lift its steel tariffs before Congress looks at the new NAFTA deal. Our program is working.

Mr. Speaker, the independent director of public prosecutions made a decision to proceed to trial on a case of corporate criminal corruption. Then the former attorney general decided to let the decision stand. Then the Prime Minister, his cabinet and Michael Wernick tried to get her to change her mind. She did not. Then she was fired. Does the Prime Minister understand that neither he nor Michael Wernick gets to define what constitutes inappropriate pressure?

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the interactions today, I have one simple question for the justice minister, and I would like the Attorney General to offer a legal opinion on behalf of Canadians. Can cabinet confidentiality be used to cover up criminal actions?

Mr. Speaker, the act empowers the attorney general to sign remediation agreements. A remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin would allow taxpayers to recover hundreds of millions of dollars, which we really need, and it could help save thousands of jobs in Quebec and Canada. We know that the minister wants to sign one. We just want to know why he did not simply do so instead of making such a mess of things over the past few weeks. Why jeopardize thousands of jobs in Quebec?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians must have confidence in their institutions.We know that the committees are doing their work. We are the government that increased resources to help them do just that. Members on both sides asked for witnesses to appear. Today, these witnesses appeared at public hearings, and the members' questions and the answers were public. I think we need to respect the independence of the committees and the judicial system.

They find it funny—

Mr. Speaker, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, members from both sides worked together to have witnesses appear. That started today. We can see members from both sides asking questions and witnesses answering those questions.I think that the member across the way should have faith in the committee process. It was our government that increased resources to committees. On this side of the House, we respect and will continue to respect the work of committees.

—like that member is now choosing to do.

Mr. Speaker, these are just Liberal talking points.

Mr. Speaker, as I responded two days ago, we have no knowledge of any such activity.

Mr. Speaker, a coalition of organizations representing Canada's retirees was on the Hill yesterday to urge the Liberal government to protect workers' pensions in case of corporate insolvency. It also called on the government to create a national pension insurance plan and to change federal insolvency legislation to give workers' pensions priority status. The NDP unequivocally supports these initiatives and has been asking the minister over and over to ensure pension security.Will the Liberals finally listen to Canadian workers and retirees and protect their pensions, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, as the record shows, the Conservative leader met with representatives of the company. The NDP leader met with representatives of the company. Today, the Conservative deputy leader herself said, “I do not want that impression to be on the record that I think there is anything wrong with meeting with SNC-Lavalin...”The Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed “At every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the prime minister made it clear that this was the decision for the minister of justice to take.”We will continue to respect the independence of our judicial system as well as the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, if an attorney general receives evidence of illegal activity within the government, he has an obligation to act. I asked the Attorney General this morning at justice committee whether or not he felt he needed to act based upon what was told to him at cabinet by the former attorney general. He did not respond. However, the Clerk of the Privy Council has now confirmed for us that the minister was not present and recused himself from that part of the cabinet meeting.Could the minister tell us if the Prime Minister told him to leave the room?

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to know whether, with the ultimate goal of protecting jobs, the Prime Minister or anyone from his office put any pressure on Canada's justice system.It is not complicated.On September 17, a meeting took place between the Prime Minister and the former attorney general of Canada.We want to know who asked for that meeting.

Mr. Speaker, it was revealed that at the September 17 meeting, the former attorney general unequivocally stated that she would not overturn the decision of the director of public prosecutions, and yet following that, on December 5, the principal secretary to the Prime Minister, and then on December 19, the Clerk of the Privy Council himself, urged the minister to change her mind. If that is not pressure, then what is?

Mr. Speaker, once again, on this side of the aisle, the government respects the independence of the work that committees do. We respect the independence of officers of Parliament. We respect the independence of the judicial system. Today, we see that the justice committee is hearing from witnesses. Members are asking tough questions, and they are receiving answers. Just last week, the director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case “exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration”. I think the member on the other side is projecting from his experience under the previous government.

Mr. Speaker, what we know and what is undisputed is that subsequent to the September 4 decision that was delivered to SNC-Lavalin, there were numerous meetings between the Prime Minister and the former attorney general, and even between the Clerk of the Privy Council and the former attorney general.We have also heard on numerous occasions, through media reports, that the former attorney general felt pressured. We are hearing from the Prime Minister that his description is that it was not pressure but vigorous discussion. Again, we seem to have it that the Prime Minister sees things one way and the former attorney general sees them a different way.

Mr. Speaker, here is the chronology. On September 4, a final decision is given by the director of public prosecutions. On September 17, there is a meeting between the minister as she then was, the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister, where she asked whether or not she was being directed, and she was told no. After that, there is a meeting on September 18, between SNC-Lavalin and the Clerk of the Privy Council. On December 5, there are discussions, again, between the former attorney general and the former private secretary to the Prime Minister. On December 19, the Clerk of the Privy Council picked up the phone to pressure the attorney general in her decision—

Mr. Speaker, here is the simple question we have been asking all day yesterday and today, and to which we still have not received an answer. Who called for the meeting between the Prime Minister and the former attorney general on September 17? Who asked for that meeting?

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister met with the former attorney general on September 17. We also now know that the Clerk of the Privy Council was present at that meeting and that there was discussion of a matter before the court.Here is a simple question that may one day be asked in court: Does the Prime Minister still challenge the former attorney general's belief that this was an attempt to improperly influence her?

Mr. Speaker, on September 4, 2018, the director of public prosecutions decided to move forward with the case against SNC-Lavalin. Two weeks later, the Prime Minister met with the then attorney general to discuss this file. The next day, the multinational's lobbyists met with the Minister of Finance and the Clerk of the Privy Council. On December 5, 2018, Gerald Butts met with the then attorney general to do exactly the same thing as the Prime Minister.What was the purpose of these discussions, if not to try to change the then attorney general's mind?Does this not clearly show that there are some rules for regular people and other rules for the Liberal Party's friends?

Mr. Speaker, the question is simple.The day after September 4, 2018, after the director of public prosecutions launched a criminal case against SNC-Lavalin, ministers and their staff met with people from the company. I am talking about people in the Department of Finance and the Department of International Trade, the office of the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's Office.If the decision had already been made by the director of public prosecutions, why did the Prime Minister think it was appropriate to meet with his former attorney general?

Mr. Speaker, the decision to go to trial had already been communicated on September 4. The Prime Minister held a meeting with the former attorney general on September 17. At that meeting, the former attorney general refused to stop the trial.I have a simple question, and I do not need a lesson on the non-answers we got from the justice minister at the justice committee. Why did the Prime Minister, his cabinet and the Clerk of the Privy Council continue to put pressure on the former attorney general after the September 17 meeting?

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court, in Krieger, stated, “It is a constitutional principle that the Attorneys General of this country must act independently of partisan concerns when exercising their delegated sovereign authority to initiate, continue or terminate prosecutions.” In the face of that, what in the world were the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's principal secretary and the Clerk of the Privy Council doing talking to the attorney general to overturn the decision of the public prosecutor?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to have confidence in their institutions, but the problem is that the Liberal government is attacking our institutions by interfering in a matter before the courts. That is not right.According to today's Globe and Mail, the former attorney general says she was subjected to improper pressure. That is obstruction of justice.How can the government tolerate that? It is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to know what happened in committee this morning. Here is my question.On September 4, the director of public prosecutions informed SNC-Lavalin that its case was going to trial. On September 17, the former attorney general told the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council that she would not overrule her director's decision. That should have been the end of it.Why did the Clerk of the Privy Council, the PMO and even the Prime Minister himself hound the Attorney General of Canada to change her decision?

Mr. Speaker, it is now very clear that the Prime Minister cannot be trusted. We know now that he met with the former attorney general after the independent prosecutor decided to proceed with the trial. We also know that the former attorney general told the Prime Minister and his office that she would not intervene. It should have ended there, but it did not.Can the Prime Minister tell us why on earth he and his government would embark on an unsolicited, coordinated and sustained effort to change her position? How is this not political interference?

Mr. Speaker, the member can refer to it as he pleases, but the fact remains that today, at the justice committee, the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed, “At every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was the decision for the minister of justice to take.” We on this side respect the work of committees. We know that members are asking tough questions. They wanted to have witnesses appear. They have worked together to have those witnesses appear. We will not undermine the work they are doing—

Mr. Speaker, it has been exactly two weeks since The Globe and Mail revealed this new Liberal scandal. In the past two weeks, what have we seen? We have seen this government get into a comedy of errors, a minister slam the door on cabinet, and the Prime Minister's principal secretary step down.Today, another layer was added to this Liberal scandal. We found out that the former attorney general told cabinet that she was pressured inappropriately. That is known as obstruction of justice.Why is the government tolerating that?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.He asked the same thing in committee today. The answer is the same. As Attorney General of Canada, I cannot comment, as that would have an impact on the legal proceedings currently under way.

Mr. Speaker, justice committee members have asked for witnesses to appear. They are appearing. I have confidence in members on both sides to ask tough questions. They will receive the answers they are looking for. Just last week, the director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' poverty reduction bill does not go far enough and does not do enough. I am not the only one saying so. We are hearing this from a thousand organizations and individuals from across the country. They are calling on the government to show leadership and to revise its bill so we can achieve the objectives.The fight against poverty is not a public relations exercise.When will the minister listen to them and finally bring forward concrete new measures to make a real difference in the fight against poverty?

Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed today that months after the former attorney general had made it clear she would not interfere in an ongoing court proceeding involving SNC-Lavalin, the Prime Minister refused to accept that decision and continued to pressure the former attorney general to change her mind. The director of public prosecutions had made a decision. The former attorney general had made a decision. Why did the Prime Minister then make the decision to try to obstruct justice in an ongoing legal proceeding?

Mr. Speaker, acts of hate are intended to drive wedges of fear and division. Such acts can be a jarring reminder that the inclusive and tolerant Canada we want is a precious and delicate work in progress that we dare not take for granted.Canadians must be free to practise their faith and culture without fear. To that end, we have doubled federal funding for the security infrastructure program to help pay for security upgrades for communities at risk. We have significantly broadened access to the program. More new projects will be announced this spring.

Mr. Speaker, what is she talking about? The Liberals claim this whole thing is about protecting jobs, but where were they for Sears workers? Where were they for Aveos, for Rona and for GM workers?If the Liberals actually cared about working people, maybe they could start jailing their corporate friends when they break the law. Instead, the Liberals are too busy getting them sweetheart deals. Liberals claim to care about the rule of law, but instead, in their world there is one set of laws for the wealthy and well connected and there is another set for everybody else.Just yesterday, the Prime Minister voted against an inquiry while his former attorney general properly abstained. Does the Prime Minister not get conflict of interest, or does he not care?

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to our government that Canadian companies around the world respect human rights and are operating with the highest possible ethical standards.We are moving forward with appointing the first-ever ombudsperson for corporate social responsibility to help reflect our core values in the world and deliver on our trade agenda. The ombudsperson will work to ensure that Canadian firms operating abroad exercise leadership in ethical, social and environmental practices. The appointment will be announced soon.

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the Government of Canada tabled Canada's first indigenous languages bill. This is a historic step in rebuilding Canada's relationship with first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples as we continue the dialogue on reconciliation.Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism please explain to the House how this bill would help indigenous peoples defend their language rights and ensure that indigenous languages are transmitted to future generations?

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record. Just last week the director of public prosecutions confirmed that prosecutors in every place “exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”Earlier today, the deputy minister of justice confirmed that “there is no direct communication, in any specific case, between the PMO and the DPP.”Today, at the justice committee, the Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that “At every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was the decision for the Minister of Justice to take.”

Mr. Speaker, in the ongoing saga of the SNC-Lavalin scandal, Canadians are watching the government melt down in front of their very eyes.According to yet another bombshell report from The Globe and Mail, the former attorney general told the cabinet this week that she was improperly pressured to get SNC-Lavalin a sweetheart plea deal in its corruption case.These Liberals promised transparency, but all we see is cover-up. They promised to work for all Canadians, but it is the wealthy and well connected who always get what they want.With obstruction of justice allegations directed at the Prime Minister's own office, how can Liberals actually stand up and stand in the way of a proper inquiry?

Mr. Speaker, as Attorney General for Canada, I will not answer a legal question or give a legal opinion on the floor of the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, let's look at the facts. The director of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada confirmed that prosecutors, in every case, exercise their discretion independently. The deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication, in any specific case, between the PMO and the PPSC. 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 make.

Mr. Speaker, the member seems to believe that if he raises his voice, all of a sudden there is more validity to what he is saying. The record has stated, as I have said and will continue to say, that the justice committee is doing the work. The member can raise his voice louder if he wants to, but the justice committee has asked for witnesses to appear. Members have asked questions. Witnesses are answering questions.It was last week that 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”.

Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between getting answers and not liking the answers, but we will let the Conservatives figure that one out.As for the work this week, this afternoon we will commence report stage debate on Bill C-83, the administrative segregation legislation. Tomorrow, we will deal with report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-77, the victims bill of rights.Monday shall be an allotted day. Tuesday, if need be, we will resume debate at report stage of Bill C-83, on administrative segregation.Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I am pleased to request the designation of an order of the day for the Minister of Finance to present Budget 2019 at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, March 19.

Mr. Speaker, we know that Canadians should have confidence in their institutions. We know that Liberal members have confidence in the independence of the judicial system and the work that the committees are doing. We have confidence in the officers of Parliament. We know that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is investigating this matter.We also know that the justice committee is looking into this matter. Members from both sides have been working very hard to call in witnesses. They are asking challenging questions. They are receiving answers. I think we should let them do their important work. We have confidence in committees.

Mr. Speaker, the justice committee is doing its work. It has called its witnesses.Today we saw many questions being asked, and we heard many answers.It is important for us to point out that the Conservatives keep talking out of both sides of their mouths. In French, they say they have no intention of hurting the SNC-Lavalin employees, as the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said. However, in English, it is quite a different story. The members, like the member for Carleton, want to shut down that company, and they are not even trying to hide it.

Mr. Speaker, Canadian highways play a key role in moving our economy forward. In fact, they are vital to rural and remote communities specifically. Good condition of these roads allows Canadians and goods to move more efficiently across the country and help our economy continue to grow. This is particularly crucial in my home province of Manitoba, as trade is an important part of our diversified economy.Could the Minister of Rural Economic Development update the House on what investments are being made for the highway network of Manitoba?

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, because I keep saying it, but I am not sure if it is registering with the members opposite. Conservatives have members from their party present at the justice committee as well. The justice committee is doing really important work. Members have been working together to ensure that they can get a list of witnesses to appear so that members can ask tough questions and get these answers. We see that work happening today, and we see it as important work. Today, when asked at the justice committee if it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials to discuss the matter with the attorney general, the Attorney General confirmed that those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, Sport Canada's policy to prevent harassment and abuse in sport has been ineffective. Each week brings new headlines detailing old or new abuses that have come to light. Athletes and sports organizations are calling on this minister to establish an independent body able to investigate abuse and harassment. Instead of listening, she announced yet another code of conduct. Will this minister stop stalling and establish an independent investigative body for abuse allegations in all sports?

Mr. Speaker, I stand here very proud to be the acting Minister of Veterans Affairs. Our government is committed to ensuring that our veterans receive the benefits and support they deserve. The needs of Canada's veterans have changed significantly over the past hundred years, when the Pension Act was introduced, and our support needs to change as well.Thanks to our government's $10-billion additional investment, all veterans today, including the most vulnerable, are better off than they were under the previous Harper government.

Mr. Speaker, I am heartbroken for all the athletes who have suffered. Let me be clear. There is zero tolerance for abuse, discrimination or harassment of any kind in sport. That is why last June, we introduced strong measures to end abuse, discrimination and harassment in sport. Last week, for the first time in our country's history, a declaration was signed by all sport ministers from coast to coast to coast. The Red Deer declaration will drive a systemic culture shift to prevent abuse, discrimination and harassment in sport.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, it is this government that increased resources for committees, to enable committees to do their important work.The member was asking to have witnesses appear. Members from both sides got together to ensure that witnesses could appear. We see today that those meetings are taking place in public. We can see that members are asking questions. We can see that witnesses are answering questions. I believe we should respect their work.We respect the independence of the judicial system. We will continue to respect officers of Parliament. That is what we do on this side. The member can choose what he chooses to do.

Mr. Speaker, the question is not whether the discussion was appropriate. The question is, in the wake of the decision made on September 4 and the meeting at the Prime Minister's Office or with the Prime Minister on September 17, who asked for that meeting? Was it the Prime Minister, or was it the former attorney general? It is not complicated.

Mr. Speaker, on September 4, Canada's top prosecutor decided that SNC-Lavalin's case would go to trial. On September 17, in the presence of the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council, the former attorney general indicated that she would not intervene to try to change the top prosecutor's decision.What followed was an unsolicited and coordinated effort by the Prime Minister and his minions to influence an ongoing legal process, and when the then attorney general did not co-operate, he fired her. In what world does this interference not constitute a clear attempt to obstruct justice?

Mr. Speaker, it was certainly welcome news more than a year ago when the current government announced that we would have a Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise. For too long, Canadians have been horrified by human rights abuses at the hands of Canadian mining companies and their actions overseas that bring shame to this country.The Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise was supposed to be a model for the world. It is a year later. Where is it?

Mr. Speaker, I can definitely state that there is obviously a different approach with this Prime Minister and this government than was the case under the previous government. We have conversations all the time. When it comes to the lives of Canadians and the important decisions we need to take, it is important that we take a whole-of-government approach and that every minister represents them. We work with members on both sides, because the voices of their constituents need to be heard. Therefore, when asked at justice committee today if it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials to discuss the matter with him, the Attorney General confirmed that those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.Talking to each other, communicating, is important. It is appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, as Attorney General of Canada, I am going to defend the principles of cabinet privilege, cabinet confidence, as well as solicitor-client privilege. One cannot just cherry-pick when it is convenient to let that go. When the question was asked of me this morning, the answer to the question was that it was covered by cabinet confidence. I have now been released by Mr. Wernick in his answer and I can confirm that I left the meeting. I recused myself from the meeting of my own accord.

Mr. Speaker, we have always respected the work that committees do and that is exactly why we are the government that increased resources at committee. Members from both sides have been asking for witnesses to appear. Committee is doing that important work.Last week, the director of public prosecutions confirmed that prosecutors in every case, “exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”Today, 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...”

Mr. Speaker, I agree with one thing the member opposite said, namely that it is important for Canadians to have confidence in their institutions. That is exactly what we on this side of the House believe. That is why we respect the independence of the judicial system. That is why we respect the work of committees, and they are doing their work.We also respect the office of the commissioner, which is doing its job, and we will continue to respect it because we know that Canadians must have confidence in their institutions.

Mr. Speaker, members from both sides of the House sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. They are asking these questions and getting answers. Everyone can listen to these discussions.Today, when asked whether it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and his officials to discuss the matter with the Attorney General, the Attorney General said that those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, as I said a number of times in the House and before the committee earlier today, the question of privilege, in the words of the former attorney general, is complex and multi-layered. We are doing our best. The committee is doing its work. We are doing our best to study that question to allow the former attorney general to speak, but we have not yet resolved the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear. It is obvious that the Conservatives do not have much respect for our institutions. On this side of the House, we respect the work of committees. We respect the independence of our judiciary. We will continue to work with them.That is exactly why we increased resources for committees so that they can do their important work. We respect our institutions, and we know it is important for Canadians to have confidence in their institutions, too.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley for his question and for his hard work.Our government understands that modern, safe and efficient highways play a crucial role in the economy of Canada. That is why we have announced over $140 million for eight highways to help Manitoba businesses improve competitiveness and improve commutes for Canadians. This is an important investment, and the kind of investment that will continue to make Canada prosper.

Mr. Speaker, we see the justice committee doing its work. We see it bringing forward witnesses and having these conversations. I believe that the committee should be able to do its work independently. Members from all parties are present for that work. We are the party that increased resources to committees so that they could do this work. Members from both sides asked for witnesses to appear. They were able to work together to bring forward a list of witnesses. Let us let the committee members do their work.

Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the Privy Council also today at the justice committee 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.”

Mr. Speaker, let us review what we heard at the justice committee this morning. When asked if it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials to discuss the matter with the attorney general, the Attorney General confirmed, “Those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.” When asked about conversations with cabinet colleagues in his role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General and whether they were appropriate, the Attorney General answered, “Absolutely.” We always have and we always will, on this side of the aisle, respect our institutions.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the justice committee has asked for witnesses to appear. Witnesses will appear. Members from both sides will be able to ask questions. Witnesses will answer those questions. I understand that the former attorney general has also been asked to appear at committee. Members from both sides will be able to ask questions. The former attorney general will be able to answer them. I am confident she will.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that Canadians have confidence in their institutions.Here is what we heard today at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. When asked if it is appropriate for the Prime Minister and his officials to discuss the matter with the attorney general, the Attorney General of Canada confirmed that those kinds of conversations would be appropriate. When asked if it is appropriate to have conversations with his cabinet colleagues as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, he replied, “Absolutely”.We respect our institutions and always will.

Mr. Speaker, I know the government House leader was quite busy today during question period not answering questions, but I think this one she will be able to answer. I have full confidence that she will be able to answer what we will be doing for the remainder of this week in the House, as well as next week.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to clearly state that, from day one, our government has stressed the importance of giving everyone a real and fair chance to succeed in Canada. That is why, in July 2016, we implemented the Canada child benefit, which lifts 300,000 children and 200,000 parents out of poverty every month. By April 2019, 650,000 people will have been lifted out of poverty thanks to the measures we have implemented.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his passion and work on this file. Pension security is very important to our government. We made a commitment in the 2018 budget, as well as in my mandate letter, to consult with Canadians, and that is exactly what we have done.I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have submitted contributions to this consultation process. Our government wants an evidence-based solution to this issue. To do that, we are going to take a look at what has been submitted and come up with an evidence-based solution. We do not want a Band-Aid solution with unintended consequences. We want the right solution, and that is what we are going to deliver.

Mr. Speaker, our country is strengthened by its diversity, and members of all communities in Canada must feel safe and be safe. We know that we are not immune to hate-motivated crimes. Communities across the country, including my riding of Oakville North—Burlington, have witnessed these cowardly acts.Can the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness tell the House what he is doing to help communities at risk of hate-motivated crime improve their security infrastructure?

Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand that my role as the Attorney General of Canada is to protect Canada's legal institutions and that is what I am going to do. That is my top priority as Attorney General.One of those institutions is the protection of litigation. Litigation privilege is very important. I cannot influence a case that is before the courts.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Yukon for his amazing work. Our language represents who we are. It is how we tell our stories to our children. Most indigenous languages are in danger and many have been lost. We need to act and we need to act now, hand in hand with indigenous peoples.I hope all parties will join indigenous peoples and pass this bill, which recognizes indigenous languages as a fundamental right. This is a clear response to calls to action 13, 14 and 15. Furthermore, this bill provides for stable, long-term funding.Let us do this together.

Mr. Speaker, there were incredibly troubling admissions made at this morning's justice committee, so many that I do not have enough time to go through them all. However, we are going to fight to do better and make sure we get this on the record.This morning, the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed that he and the Prime Minister sought to influence the decision of the attorney general in the matter of bribery and fraud charges against SNC-Lavalin. Could the Prime Minister confirm that this indeed is the case?

Mr. Speaker, they find it funny that 300,000 plus children have been lifted out of poverty through the Canada child benefit. The Conservatives chose to tax that benefit. We believe that families with children, who need the most, should get the most. We will keep fighting for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, that member knows better than most that we have an Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That office is doing its work. We respect its independence. We think we should let that office do its work.The member talks about Canadians. He talks about the importance of employees. Let us talk about this government's record. We have made strategic investments in Canadians, bringing in 800,000 jobs.

Mr. Speaker, that member knows better than most that we have an Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That office is doing its work. We respect its independence. We think we should let that office do its work.The member talks about Canadians. He talks about the importance of employees. Let us talk about this government's record. We have made strategic investments in Canadians, bringing in 800,000 jobs.

Mr. Speaker, they find it funny that 300,000 plus children have been lifted out of poverty through the Canada child benefit. The Conservatives chose to tax that benefit. We believe that families with children, who need the most, should get the most. We will keep fighting for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, there were incredibly troubling admissions made at this morning's justice committee, so many that I do not have enough time to go through them all. However, we are going to fight to do better and make sure we get this on the record.This morning, the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed that he and the Prime Minister sought to influence the decision of the attorney general in the matter of bribery and fraud charges against SNC-Lavalin. Could the Prime Minister confirm that this indeed is the case?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Yukon for his amazing work. Our language represents who we are. It is how we tell our stories to our children. Most indigenous languages are in danger and many have been lost. We need to act and we need to act now, hand in hand with indigenous peoples.I hope all parties will join indigenous peoples and pass this bill, which recognizes indigenous languages as a fundamental right. This is a clear response to calls to action 13, 14 and 15. Furthermore, this bill provides for stable, long-term funding.Let us do this together.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand that my role as the Attorney General of Canada is to protect Canada's legal institutions and that is what I am going to do. That is my top priority as Attorney General.One of those institutions is the protection of litigation. Litigation privilege is very important. I cannot influence a case that is before the courts.

Mr. Speaker, our country is strengthened by its diversity, and members of all communities in Canada must feel safe and be safe. We know that we are not immune to hate-motivated crimes. Communities across the country, including my riding of Oakville North—Burlington, have witnessed these cowardly acts.Can the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness tell the House what he is doing to help communities at risk of hate-motivated crime improve their security infrastructure?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his passion and work on this file. Pension security is very important to our government. We made a commitment in the 2018 budget, as well as in my mandate letter, to consult with Canadians, and that is exactly what we have done.I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have submitted contributions to this consultation process. Our government wants an evidence-based solution to this issue. To do that, we are going to take a look at what has been submitted and come up with an evidence-based solution. We do not want a Band-Aid solution with unintended consequences. We want the right solution, and that is what we are going to deliver.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to clearly state that, from day one, our government has stressed the importance of giving everyone a real and fair chance to succeed in Canada. That is why, in July 2016, we implemented the Canada child benefit, which lifts 300,000 children and 200,000 parents out of poverty every month. By April 2019, 650,000 people will have been lifted out of poverty thanks to the measures we have implemented.

Mr. Speaker, I know the government House leader was quite busy today during question period not answering questions, but I think this one she will be able to answer. I have full confidence that she will be able to answer what we will be doing for the remainder of this week in the House, as well as next week.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that Canadians have confidence in their institutions.Here is what we heard today at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. When asked if it is appropriate for the Prime Minister and his officials to discuss the matter with the attorney general, the Attorney General of Canada confirmed that those kinds of conversations would be appropriate. When asked if it is appropriate to have conversations with his cabinet colleagues as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, he replied, “Absolutely”.We respect our institutions and always will.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the justice committee has asked for witnesses to appear. Witnesses will appear. Members from both sides will be able to ask questions. Witnesses will answer those questions. I understand that the former attorney general has also been asked to appear at committee. Members from both sides will be able to ask questions. The former attorney general will be able to answer them. I am confident she will.

Mr. Speaker, let us review what we heard at the justice committee this morning. When asked if it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials to discuss the matter with the attorney general, the Attorney General confirmed, “Those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.” When asked about conversations with cabinet colleagues in his role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General and whether they were appropriate, the Attorney General answered, “Absolutely.” We always have and we always will, on this side of the aisle, respect our institutions.

Mr. Speaker, we see the justice committee doing its work. We see it bringing forward witnesses and having these conversations. I believe that the committee should be able to do its work independently. Members from all parties are present for that work. We are the party that increased resources to committees so that they could do this work. Members from both sides asked for witnesses to appear. They were able to work together to bring forward a list of witnesses. Let us let the committee members do their work.

Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the Privy Council also today at the justice committee 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.”

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley for his question and for his hard work.Our government understands that modern, safe and efficient highways play a crucial role in the economy of Canada. That is why we have announced over $140 million for eight highways to help Manitoba businesses improve competitiveness and improve commutes for Canadians. This is an important investment, and the kind of investment that will continue to make Canada prosper.

Mr. Speaker, as I said a number of times in the House and before the committee earlier today, the question of privilege, in the words of the former attorney general, is complex and multi-layered. We are doing our best. The committee is doing its work. We are doing our best to study that question to allow the former attorney general to speak, but we have not yet resolved the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear. It is obvious that the Conservatives do not have much respect for our institutions. On this side of the House, we respect the work of committees. We respect the independence of our judiciary. We will continue to work with them.That is exactly why we increased resources for committees so that they can do their important work. We respect our institutions, and we know it is important for Canadians to have confidence in their institutions, too.

Mr. Speaker, members from both sides of the House sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. They are asking these questions and getting answers. Everyone can listen to these discussions.Today, when asked whether it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and his officials to discuss the matter with the Attorney General, the Attorney General said that those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, as Attorney General of Canada, I am going to defend the principles of cabinet privilege, cabinet confidence, as well as solicitor-client privilege. One cannot just cherry-pick when it is convenient to let that go. When the question was asked of me this morning, the answer to the question was that it was covered by cabinet confidence. I have now been released by Mr. Wernick in his answer and I can confirm that I left the meeting. I recused myself from the meeting of my own accord.

Mr. Speaker, we have always respected the work that committees do and that is exactly why we are the government that increased resources at committee. Members from both sides have been asking for witnesses to appear. Committee is doing that important work.Last week, the director of public prosecutions confirmed that prosecutors in every case, “exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”Today, 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...”

Mr. Speaker, I agree with one thing the member opposite said, namely that it is important for Canadians to have confidence in their institutions. That is exactly what we on this side of the House believe. That is why we respect the independence of the judicial system. That is why we respect the work of committees, and they are doing their work.We also respect the office of the commissioner, which is doing its job, and we will continue to respect it because we know that Canadians must have confidence in their institutions.

Mr. Speaker, I can definitely state that there is obviously a different approach with this Prime Minister and this government than was the case under the previous government. We have conversations all the time. When it comes to the lives of Canadians and the important decisions we need to take, it is important that we take a whole-of-government approach and that every minister represents them. We work with members on both sides, because the voices of their constituents need to be heard. Therefore, when asked at justice committee today if it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials to discuss the matter with him, the Attorney General confirmed that those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.Talking to each other, communicating, is important. It is appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, it was certainly welcome news more than a year ago when the current government announced that we would have a Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise. For too long, Canadians have been horrified by human rights abuses at the hands of Canadian mining companies and their actions overseas that bring shame to this country.The Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise was supposed to be a model for the world. It is a year later. Where is it?

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, it is this government that increased resources for committees, to enable committees to do their important work.The member was asking to have witnesses appear. Members from both sides got together to ensure that witnesses could appear. We see today that those meetings are taking place in public. We can see that members are asking questions. We can see that witnesses are answering questions. I believe we should respect their work.We respect the independence of the judicial system. We will continue to respect officers of Parliament. That is what we do on this side. The member can choose what he chooses to do.

Mr. Speaker, the question is not whether the discussion was appropriate. The question is, in the wake of the decision made on September 4 and the meeting at the Prime Minister's Office or with the Prime Minister on September 17, who asked for that meeting? Was it the Prime Minister, or was it the former attorney general? It is not complicated.

Mr. Speaker, on September 4, Canada's top prosecutor decided that SNC-Lavalin's case would go to trial. On September 17, in the presence of the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council, the former attorney general indicated that she would not intervene to try to change the top prosecutor's decision.What followed was an unsolicited and coordinated effort by the Prime Minister and his minions to influence an ongoing legal process, and when the then attorney general did not co-operate, he fired her. In what world does this interference not constitute a clear attempt to obstruct justice?

Mr. Speaker, I am heartbroken for all the athletes who have suffered. Let me be clear. There is zero tolerance for abuse, discrimination or harassment of any kind in sport. That is why last June, we introduced strong measures to end abuse, discrimination and harassment in sport. Last week, for the first time in our country's history, a declaration was signed by all sport ministers from coast to coast to coast. The Red Deer declaration will drive a systemic culture shift to prevent abuse, discrimination and harassment in sport.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here very proud to be the acting Minister of Veterans Affairs. Our government is committed to ensuring that our veterans receive the benefits and support they deserve. The needs of Canada's veterans have changed significantly over the past hundred years, when the Pension Act was introduced, and our support needs to change as well.Thanks to our government's $10-billion additional investment, all veterans today, including the most vulnerable, are better off than they were under the previous Harper government.

Mr. Speaker, Sport Canada's policy to prevent harassment and abuse in sport has been ineffective. Each week brings new headlines detailing old or new abuses that have come to light. Athletes and sports organizations are calling on this minister to establish an independent body able to investigate abuse and harassment. Instead of listening, she announced yet another code of conduct. Will this minister stop stalling and establish an independent investigative body for abuse allegations in all sports?

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, because I keep saying it, but I am not sure if it is registering with the members opposite. Conservatives have members from their party present at the justice committee as well. The justice committee is doing really important work. Members have been working together to ensure that they can get a list of witnesses to appear so that members can ask tough questions and get these answers. We see that work happening today, and we see it as important work. Today, when asked at the justice committee if it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials to discuss the matter with the attorney general, the Attorney General confirmed that those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, Canadian highways play a key role in moving our economy forward. In fact, they are vital to rural and remote communities specifically. Good condition of these roads allows Canadians and goods to move more efficiently across the country and help our economy continue to grow. This is particularly crucial in my home province of Manitoba, as trade is an important part of our diversified economy.Could the Minister of Rural Economic Development update the House on what investments are being made for the highway network of Manitoba?

Mr. Speaker, the justice committee is doing its work. It has called its witnesses.Today we saw many questions being asked, and we heard many answers.It is important for us to point out that the Conservatives keep talking out of both sides of their mouths. In French, they say they have no intention of hurting the SNC-Lavalin employees, as the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said. However, in English, it is quite a different story. The members, like the member for Carleton, want to shut down that company, and they are not even trying to hide it.

Mr. Speaker, we know that Canadians should have confidence in their institutions. We know that Liberal members have confidence in the independence of the judicial system and the work that the committees are doing. We have confidence in the officers of Parliament. We know that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is investigating this matter.We also know that the justice committee is looking into this matter. Members from both sides have been working very hard to call in witnesses. They are asking challenging questions. They are receiving answers. I think we should let them do their important work. We have confidence in committees.

Mr. Speaker, the member seems to believe that if he raises his voice, all of a sudden there is more validity to what he is saying. The record has stated, as I have said and will continue to say, that the justice committee is doing the work. The member can raise his voice louder if he wants to, but the justice committee has asked for witnesses to appear. Members have asked questions. Witnesses are answering questions.It was last week that 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”.

Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between getting answers and not liking the answers, but we will let the Conservatives figure that one out.As for the work this week, this afternoon we will commence report stage debate on Bill C-83, the administrative segregation legislation. Tomorrow, we will deal with report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-77, the victims bill of rights.Monday shall be an allotted day. Tuesday, if need be, we will resume debate at report stage of Bill C-83, on administrative segregation.Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I am pleased to request the designation of an order of the day for the Minister of Finance to present Budget 2019 at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, March 19.

Mr. Speaker, let's look at the facts. The director of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada confirmed that prosecutors, in every case, exercise their discretion independently. The deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication, in any specific case, between the PMO and the PPSC. 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 make.

Mr. Speaker, as Attorney General for Canada, I will not answer a legal question or give a legal opinion on the floor of the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, in the ongoing saga of the SNC-Lavalin scandal, Canadians are watching the government melt down in front of their very eyes.According to yet another bombshell report from The Globe and Mail, the former attorney general told the cabinet this week that she was improperly pressured to get SNC-Lavalin a sweetheart plea deal in its corruption case.These Liberals promised transparency, but all we see is cover-up. They promised to work for all Canadians, but it is the wealthy and well connected who always get what they want.With obstruction of justice allegations directed at the Prime Minister's own office, how can Liberals actually stand up and stand in the way of a proper inquiry?

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record. Just last week the director of public prosecutions confirmed that prosecutors in every place “exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”Earlier today, the deputy minister of justice confirmed that “there is no direct communication, in any specific case, between the PMO and the DPP.”Today, at the justice committee, the Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that “At every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was the decision for the Minister of Justice to take.”

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the Government of Canada tabled Canada's first indigenous languages bill. This is a historic step in rebuilding Canada's relationship with first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples as we continue the dialogue on reconciliation.Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism please explain to the House how this bill would help indigenous peoples defend their language rights and ensure that indigenous languages are transmitted to future generations?

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to our government that Canadian companies around the world respect human rights and are operating with the highest possible ethical standards.We are moving forward with appointing the first-ever ombudsperson for corporate social responsibility to help reflect our core values in the world and deliver on our trade agenda. The ombudsperson will work to ensure that Canadian firms operating abroad exercise leadership in ethical, social and environmental practices. The appointment will be announced soon.

Mr. Speaker, what is she talking about? The Liberals claim this whole thing is about protecting jobs, but where were they for Sears workers? Where were they for Aveos, for Rona and for GM workers?If the Liberals actually cared about working people, maybe they could start jailing their corporate friends when they break the law. Instead, the Liberals are too busy getting them sweetheart deals. Liberals claim to care about the rule of law, but instead, in their world there is one set of laws for the wealthy and well connected and there is another set for everybody else.Just yesterday, the Prime Minister voted against an inquiry while his former attorney general properly abstained. Does the Prime Minister not get conflict of interest, or does he not care?

Mr. Speaker, acts of hate are intended to drive wedges of fear and division. Such acts can be a jarring reminder that the inclusive and tolerant Canada we want is a precious and delicate work in progress that we dare not take for granted.Canadians must be free to practise their faith and culture without fear. To that end, we have doubled federal funding for the security infrastructure program to help pay for security upgrades for communities at risk. We have significantly broadened access to the program. More new projects will be announced this spring.

Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed today that months after the former attorney general had made it clear she would not interfere in an ongoing court proceeding involving SNC-Lavalin, the Prime Minister refused to accept that decision and continued to pressure the former attorney general to change her mind. The director of public prosecutions had made a decision. The former attorney general had made a decision. Why did the Prime Minister then make the decision to try to obstruct justice in an ongoing legal proceeding?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' poverty reduction bill does not go far enough and does not do enough. I am not the only one saying so. We are hearing this from a thousand organizations and individuals from across the country. They are calling on the government to show leadership and to revise its bill so we can achieve the objectives.The fight against poverty is not a public relations exercise.When will the minister listen to them and finally bring forward concrete new measures to make a real difference in the fight against poverty?

Mr. Speaker, justice committee members have asked for witnesses to appear. They are appearing. I have confidence in members on both sides to ask tough questions. They will receive the answers they are looking for. Just last week, the director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.He asked the same thing in committee today. The answer is the same. As Attorney General of Canada, I cannot comment, as that would have an impact on the legal proceedings currently under way.

Mr. Speaker, it has been exactly two weeks since The Globe and Mail revealed this new Liberal scandal. In the past two weeks, what have we seen? We have seen this government get into a comedy of errors, a minister slam the door on cabinet, and the Prime Minister's principal secretary step down.Today, another layer was added to this Liberal scandal. We found out that the former attorney general told cabinet that she was pressured inappropriately. That is known as obstruction of justice.Why is the government tolerating that?

Mr. Speaker, the member can refer to it as he pleases, but the fact remains that today, at the justice committee, the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed, “At every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was the decision for the minister of justice to take.” We on this side respect the work of committees. We know that members are asking tough questions. They wanted to have witnesses appear. They have worked together to have those witnesses appear. We will not undermine the work they are doing—

Mr. Speaker, it is now very clear that the Prime Minister cannot be trusted. We know now that he met with the former attorney general after the independent prosecutor decided to proceed with the trial. We also know that the former attorney general told the Prime Minister and his office that she would not intervene. It should have ended there, but it did not.Can the Prime Minister tell us why on earth he and his government would embark on an unsolicited, coordinated and sustained effort to change her position? How is this not political interference?

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court, in Krieger, stated, “It is a constitutional principle that the Attorneys General of this country must act independently of partisan concerns when exercising their delegated sovereign authority to initiate, continue or terminate prosecutions.” In the face of that, what in the world were the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's principal secretary and the Clerk of the Privy Council doing talking to the attorney general to overturn the decision of the public prosecutor?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to have confidence in their institutions, but the problem is that the Liberal government is attacking our institutions by interfering in a matter before the courts. That is not right.According to today's Globe and Mail, the former attorney general says she was subjected to improper pressure. That is obstruction of justice.How can the government tolerate that? It is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to know what happened in committee this morning. Here is my question.On September 4, the director of public prosecutions informed SNC-Lavalin that its case was going to trial. On September 17, the former attorney general told the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council that she would not overrule her director's decision. That should have been the end of it.Why did the Clerk of the Privy Council, the PMO and even the Prime Minister himself hound the Attorney General of Canada to change her decision?

Mr. Speaker, the question is simple.The day after September 4, 2018, after the director of public prosecutions launched a criminal case against SNC-Lavalin, ministers and their staff met with people from the company. I am talking about people in the Department of Finance and the Department of International Trade, the office of the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's Office.If the decision had already been made by the director of public prosecutions, why did the Prime Minister think it was appropriate to meet with his former attorney general?

Mr. Speaker, the decision to go to trial had already been communicated on September 4. The Prime Minister held a meeting with the former attorney general on September 17. At that meeting, the former attorney general refused to stop the trial.I have a simple question, and I do not need a lesson on the non-answers we got from the justice minister at the justice committee. Why did the Prime Minister, his cabinet and the Clerk of the Privy Council continue to put pressure on the former attorney general after the September 17 meeting?

Mr. Speaker, on September 4, 2018, the director of public prosecutions decided to move forward with the case against SNC-Lavalin. Two weeks later, the Prime Minister met with the then attorney general to discuss this file. The next day, the multinational's lobbyists met with the Minister of Finance and the Clerk of the Privy Council. On December 5, 2018, Gerald Butts met with the then attorney general to do exactly the same thing as the Prime Minister.What was the purpose of these discussions, if not to try to change the then attorney general's mind?Does this not clearly show that there are some rules for regular people and other rules for the Liberal Party's friends?

Mr. Speaker, here is the simple question we have been asking all day yesterday and today, and to which we still have not received an answer. Who called for the meeting between the Prime Minister and the former attorney general on September 17? Who asked for that meeting?

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister met with the former attorney general on September 17. We also now know that the Clerk of the Privy Council was present at that meeting and that there was discussion of a matter before the court.Here is a simple question that may one day be asked in court: Does the Prime Minister still challenge the former attorney general's belief that this was an attempt to improperly influence her?

Mr. Speaker, here is the chronology. On September 4, a final decision is given by the director of public prosecutions. On September 17, there is a meeting between the minister as she then was, the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister, where she asked whether or not she was being directed, and she was told no. After that, there is a meeting on September 18, between SNC-Lavalin and the Clerk of the Privy Council. On December 5, there are discussions, again, between the former attorney general and the former private secretary to the Prime Minister. On December 19, the Clerk of the Privy Council picked up the phone to pressure the attorney general in her decision—

Mr. Speaker, what we know and what is undisputed is that subsequent to the September 4 decision that was delivered to SNC-Lavalin, there were numerous meetings between the Prime Minister and the former attorney general, and even between the Clerk of the Privy Council and the former attorney general.We have also heard on numerous occasions, through media reports, that the former attorney general felt pressured. We are hearing from the Prime Minister that his description is that it was not pressure but vigorous discussion. Again, we seem to have it that the Prime Minister sees things one way and the former attorney general sees them a different way.

Mr. Speaker, once again, on this side of the aisle, the government respects the independence of the work that committees do. We respect the independence of officers of Parliament. We respect the independence of the judicial system. Today, we see that the justice committee is hearing from witnesses. Members are asking tough questions, and they are receiving answers. Just last week, the director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case “exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration”. I think the member on the other side is projecting from his experience under the previous government.

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to know whether, with the ultimate goal of protecting jobs, the Prime Minister or anyone from his office put any pressure on Canada's justice system.It is not complicated.On September 17, a meeting took place between the Prime Minister and the former attorney general of Canada.We want to know who asked for that meeting.

Mr. Speaker, it was revealed that at the September 17 meeting, the former attorney general unequivocally stated that she would not overturn the decision of the director of public prosecutions, and yet following that, on December 5, the principal secretary to the Prime Minister, and then on December 19, the Clerk of the Privy Council himself, urged the minister to change her mind. If that is not pressure, then what is?

Mr. Speaker, if an attorney general receives evidence of illegal activity within the government, he has an obligation to act. I asked the Attorney General this morning at justice committee whether or not he felt he needed to act based upon what was told to him at cabinet by the former attorney general. He did not respond. However, the Clerk of the Privy Council has now confirmed for us that the minister was not present and recused himself from that part of the cabinet meeting.Could the minister tell us if the Prime Minister told him to leave the room?

Mr. Speaker, as the record shows, the Conservative leader met with representatives of the company. The NDP leader met with representatives of the company. Today, the Conservative deputy leader herself said, “I do not want that impression to be on the record that I think there is anything wrong with meeting with SNC-Lavalin...”The Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed “At every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the prime minister made it clear that this was the decision for the minister of justice to take.”We will continue to respect the independence of our judicial system as well as the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians must have confidence in their institutions.We know that the committees are doing their work. We are the government that increased resources to help them do just that. Members on both sides asked for witnesses to appear. Today, these witnesses appeared at public hearings, and the members' questions and the answers were public. I think we need to respect the independence of the committees and the judicial system.

They find it funny—

Mr. Speaker, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, members from both sides worked together to have witnesses appear. That started today. We can see members from both sides asking questions and witnesses answering those questions.I think that the member across the way should have faith in the committee process. It was our government that increased resources to committees. On this side of the House, we respect and will continue to respect the work of committees.

—like that member is now choosing to do.

Mr. Speaker, these are just Liberal talking points.

Mr. Speaker, as I responded two days ago, we have no knowledge of any such activity.

Mr. Speaker, a coalition of organizations representing Canada's retirees was on the Hill yesterday to urge the Liberal government to protect workers' pensions in case of corporate insolvency. It also called on the government to create a national pension insurance plan and to change federal insolvency legislation to give workers' pensions priority status. The NDP unequivocally supports these initiatives and has been asking the minister over and over to ensure pension security.Will the Liberals finally listen to Canadian workers and retirees and protect their pensions, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, the act empowers the attorney general to sign remediation agreements. A remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin would allow taxpayers to recover hundreds of millions of dollars, which we really need, and it could help save thousands of jobs in Quebec and Canada. We know that the minister wants to sign one. We just want to know why he did not simply do so instead of making such a mess of things over the past few weeks. Why jeopardize thousands of jobs in Quebec?

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the interactions today, I have one simple question for the justice minister, and I would like the Attorney General to offer a legal opinion on behalf of Canadians. Can cabinet confidentiality be used to cover up criminal actions?

Mr. Speaker, the independent director of public prosecutions made a decision to proceed to trial on a case of corporate criminal corruption. Then the former attorney general decided to let the decision stand. Then the Prime Minister, his cabinet and Michael Wernick tried to get her to change her mind. She did not. Then she was fired. Does the Prime Minister understand that neither he nor Michael Wernick gets to define what constitutes inappropriate pressure?

Mr. Speaker, in response to the illegal U.S. tariffs, we have imposed Canada's strongest trade actions ever. Over 40 American groups, representing dozens of U.S. industries, have called for the removal of the U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs, citing the impact of our retaliatory actions. Recently, a senior Republican said that our tariffs are having such an impact that the U.S. must lift its steel tariffs before Congress looks at the new NAFTA deal. Our program is working.

Mr. Speaker, on September 4, after carefully reviewing the case, the director of public prosecutions decided to pursue criminal charges.Why did the Prime Minister choose to meet his former attorney general and justice minister 13 days later, on September 17? Why?

Mr. Speaker, we learned from this morning's PBO report that the Liberals misled veterans with their new pension for life, which is actually less generous for the most seriously injured veterans. Worse, throughout this whole SNC-Lavalin scandal, veterans are losing out because the Prime Minister has yet to appoint a veterans affairs minister. The revolving door of Liberal and Conservative ministers is disrespectful, with eight ministers in nine years. It is heartbreaking to see veterans sacrifice their lives while consecutive governments will not properly invest in services that veterans deserve. Why are the Liberals leaving veterans out in the cold?

Mr. Speaker, we can always count on the Liberal Party of Canada to come up with a good political scandal by bending the rules to help out their corrupt millionaire friends. The Liberals always deliver the goods and even throw in an extended warranty.First Gerald Butts resigns, and now the former justice minister is saying that she was inappropriately pressured. That information was leaked by cabinet.If the Prime Minister is afraid of a public inquiry, can he at least allow the former minister to give us her side of the story?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister tried to stop criminal proceedings. The former attorney general said no.My question is simple. Why did the Prime Minister, the PMO and the Clerk of the Privy Council continue to interfere in the case after the September 17 meeting? Why?

Mr. Speaker, the former attorney general told cabinet this week, according to The Globe and Mail, that she faced inappropriate pressure to interfere with the trial into the criminal charges against SNC-Lavalin. Subsection 139(1) of the Criminal Code makes it an indictable offence, punishable by up to two years in prison, to obstruct the course of justice in a judicial proceeding. Has any member of the cabinet who bore witness to the former attorney general's remarks this week passed them along to the RCMP for investigation?

Mr. Speaker, to speak truth to power, a citizen cannot ask anything more from an elected official, yet when the former attorney general attempted to speak with her cabinet colleagues about political interference in a justice case, the Prime Minister left her sitting outside his office for two hours while he dithered about the optics of letting her into his domain. In that meeting she spoke truth to power, and he came out and said he was disappointed in her. Canadians are disappointed in him because she is ready to speak her truth to his power. What is he so afraid of?

Mr. Speaker, for the past two weeks, the government has been getting bogged down in its versions, secrets, resignations and half-truths.Why did the Minister of Veterans Affairs resign? We do not know.Why did the Prime Minister's advisor resign? We do not know.If the Attorney General can reach an agreement with SNC-Lavalin, why is he choosing not to do so? We do not know that either.Once again, thousands of jobs are on the line in Quebec. Why is there no remediation agreement?

Mr. Speaker, as I explained at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the question of solicitor-client privilege is complex. We want to be transparent. That is why we are working hard to get an answer so the former minister can have her say.

Mr. Speaker, now she is quoting a politician about an incident he just admitted he did not witness. Why not get back to the people who did witness her? The former attorney general told cabinet this week, according to The Globe and Mail, that she faced inappropriate pressure to interfere with the criminal trial of SNC-Lavalin. If that happened, it may have violated sections of the Criminal Code. Did anyone in the cabinet refer her allegation to the RCMP for investigation?

Mr. Speaker, it has been nine months since Trump imposed the destructive tariffs on steel and aluminum, which have forced companies to close shop and workers to lose their jobs.Liberals keep trying to assure Canadians that they have a plan, but the tariffs are still there. This is the same old story: “Do not worry, we are working on it, and we care about jobs.” After months of witness testimony at the trade committee, we now know that their plan is a failure, a failure to protect communities and jobs, a failure to remove the tariffs.How much more do Canadians need to lose before this Prime Minister will act?

Mr. Speaker, then the Prime Minister should lift the privilege. The poor Liberals are without Gerry Butts to write their lines for them. Yesterday the former justice minister stood in the House not once, but twice, and told her colleagues and every member of the House that she is being silenced in her ability by the Prime Minister. His treatment of her is not just spiteful, not just pusillanimous; this is about the exercise of power and protecting his friends and his insiders. One woman with integrity is standing in his path. What is he afraid of? He should let her speak her truth and her power to him.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader met with representatives of the company. The NDP leader met with representatives of the company. Today, the Conservative deputy leader herself said that she did not want to give the impression that she thinks there is anything wrong with meeting with SNC-Lavalin. On this side of the House, we respect the independence of the committee and the judicial system. We see the committee doing its work.