Most toxic speeches
Mr. Speaker, this is what SNC-Lavalin's intervention looked like: 30 thousand dollars' worth of Canadian prostitutes given to Moammar Gadhafi's son. This is the so-called victimless crime that our woke feminist Prime Minister is moving mountains to cover up.When did the Prime Minister learn that SNC-Lavalin paid for prostitutes for Moammar Gadhafi's son?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been refusing to tell the truth since the news about SNC-Lavalin broke.For nearly three weeks now, the message has changed daily. He even refused to let the former attorney general speak while allowing the current Attorney General to speak everyday. It is completely ridiculous.After question period today, the Prime Minister will finally let the member for Vancouver Granville talk about what happened, but only some of what happened.The Prime Minister promised to be different, so why is he not giving her free rein to speak her truth?
Mr. Speaker, throughout the byelection in Burnaby South, people made it clear to Jagmeet Singh that the Liberals only care about the wealthy and the well connected. Everyday Canadians are struggling to put food on the table. They cannot afford the medication that they need. While the Liberals will move heaven and earth to help the corporate elite, everyday Canadians are left behind. All Canadians deserve safe, affordable housing, public universal pharmacare and food on the table. No more delays. No more excuses. Will the Prime Minister put everyday Canadians first for a change, and make real investments in budget 2019 for the people who are most in need?
Mr. Speaker, it is always we will, we will, we will.The Prime Minister has known for over a year now that SNC-Lavalin risks losing all government contracts if there is no remediation agreement. His inaction has cost SNC-Lavalin $1.6 billion over the past few months. Funds belonging to the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, the nest egg of Quebeckers, are at stake. His inaction could cost Quebec thousands of jobs and a head office. Why has the Prime Minister turned his back on the workers at SNC-Lavalin?
Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, I stood in this House to raise the alarm on the increase in rejections of disability tax credit applications. It is a disturbing fact that there is a 60% increase in rejections. To make matters worse, Liberals have clawed back over $26 million from people with severe and prolonged impairments. They still have not fixed this problem. Liberals are clearly out of touch. What Canadians really want to know is how the Liberals could let this happen.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister conspired to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with bribery, and this is what the bribery looked like
Mr. Speaker, northerners are taking part in the ice road jigging challenge to raise awareness about ice road communities. Their message is clear: We need roads that work all year to bring supplies to our communities and to travel to doctor appointments. The Liberals do not seem to understand the climate change is making Hatchet Lake first nation inaccessible because the ice roads are open for shorter periods of time. Why does the Liberal government keep neglecting the basic needs of northerners?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that he is pleased that the former attorney general can share her perspective on SNC-Lavalin. Now we know why. He is still dictating what she can and cannot say about this Liberal corruption scandal.If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, why is he still trying to silence the former attorney general?
Mr. Speaker, diverse perspectives, yes, there is truth and non-truth. I remember in Sunday school they said that what is whispered in the backrooms is going to get shouted from the rooftops. This is the Prime Minister's opportunity to come clean. Stop hiding behind those legal-weasel mechanisms that are preventing the former minister from telling the whole truth. Will he waive the cabinet confidence on what was said to the member of Vancouver Granville in the lead-up to her resignation? Better yet, will the Prime Minister agree to testify about his interference in this case and come clean on this whole tawdry affair? Will he testify?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had no trouble talking about that period of time after he had fired her as Attorney General and until she resigned. The Clerk of the Privy Council had no trouble talking about that period of time after the former attorney general was moved along and then resigned.Why is the Prime Minister preventing the person who was fired and who resigned from sharing her full truth? Why is he placing restraints on her? Why will he not do the right thing and lift them right now?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals were dragged kicking and screaming to the justice committee before they even started to allow people to give testimony. They are still only allowing half the story to be told, the half of the story the Prime Minister is comfortable hearing. There is more to this story. Something happened. Something was said to the former attorney general or someone in the Prime Minister's Office validated her accusations that she lost her job because she would not let his friends off the hook. Is that why the Prime Minister will not waive full privilege in this matter?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in her letter to the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the former attorney general of Canada said that she would not be able to speak freely about the interference by the Prime Minister and his cronies. If we understand correctly, everyone who has appeared before the committee has been able to tell everything they knew, except the former attorney general. She will be the only witness who cannot speak freely.Could the Prime Minister just tell us why he is trying to muzzle her instead of freeing her to tell Canadians everything she knows?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister still fails to answer the question. He claimed for so long that he needed to allow SNC-Lavalin to avoid conviction so it could continue to have federal contracts. We now know from his own minister's admission that a simple policy change would allow SNC-Lavalin to go on getting contracts and employing people. That cannot be his real motivation.Obviously, the Prime Minister was protecting someone else. If this is not about protecting jobs, who was he protecting?
Mr. Speaker, the members opposite do not seem to want to talk anymore about the fact that every step of the way we stood up for good jobs across this country, we stood up for Canadian workers and we stood up for the growth of our economy, which we have been delivering on over the past three years, while at the same time defending our institutions, defending the independence of our judiciary and standing up for the rule of law. That is what Canadians expect of this government, of any government, and that is exactly what we are delivering on in every different instance.
Mr. Speaker, the best way to protect our institutions is to let everyone state the facts clearly. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister denied the former attorney general of Canada that freedom to speak. She herself acknowledged that she will not be able to speak her full truth.I will ask my very simple question again. Did anyone in the PMO or in a minister's office contact SNC-Lavalin representatives to assure them there would be no criminal trial, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, we on the opposition side are not making this up. It is the former attorney general herself, who remains a Liberal member sitting on that side of the House, who clearly said that she does not have free rein to speak before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. She will not be able to speak about what happened when she was veterans affairs minister. She will not be able to speak about what happened during the meetings in Vancouver before she resigned. She will not be able to speak about what happened during last week's cabinet meeting and Liberal caucus meeting after she resigned. She will not be able to speak her truth, because the Prime Minister does not want to give her
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we will always defend Canadian jobs. We will always defend workers. We will always defend pensioners. We will always stand up for the economic growth that, unfortunately, simply did not happen under 10 years of Conservative government.At the same time, what also did not happen under 10 years of the Conservative government is respect for our institutions, respect for the independence of law, and the kinds of thoughtful processes that actually defend our justice system. That is exactly what we are doing, at the same time: We are protecting jobs while standing up for the rule of law in this country.
Mr. Speaker, the opposition seems to be shifting in its approach, because the justice committee and indeed the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner are very much focused on a very specific question that they are looking into.We have waived privilege and we have waived cabinet confidentiality so that the former attorney general can speak fully and expansively to the matter under study. That is what Canadians expect. That is exactly what we are doing, because we understand how important it is to make sure that Canadians hear a diverse range of perspectives.
Mr. Speaker, we understand that the members opposite want to maximize the political impact of this matter. However, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Ethics Commissioner are looking into a very specific question.We waived solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality to allow the former attorney general to speak fully to the matter in question. That is exactly what Canadians deserve, and that is what we did.
Mr. Speaker, hundreds of young people sent an SOS to all politicians during the La planète s'invite à l'école event. They know that their generation will pay the price for global warming.Will the Liberals listen to them and include measures in the budget to end fossil fuel subsidies and massive investments in renewable energy?Given the urgent need to address climate change, young people understand that the time for dithering and half-measures is over. Will the Liberals recognize this and take appropriate action?
Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of the SNC-Lavalin saga, the Prime Minister sent mixed messages to Canadians. First, he refused to allow the former attorney general to speak at all. Then he gave in but only a little bit. This week, she wrote the justice committee and said that she will not be able to tell us anything as to what happened after January 14.Are these the actions of a Prime Minister who says that sunlight is the best disinfectant? Enough is enough. Will the Prime Minister let the former attorney general tell her story, speak her truth and tell Canadians exactly what happened?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that if he had allowed SNC-Lavalin to face criminal conviction, the company would be banned from getting federal contracts and would go out of business.However, in December 2015 the government gave SNC-Lavalin a deal exempting it from the ban despite criminal charges. Now the government is changing the policy to exempt SNC-Lavalin even if it gets convicted.If the Prime Minister plans to allow SNC-Lavalin to get contracts even after a conviction, why did he need to intervene to stop the company from going to trial in the first place?
Mr. Speaker, we respect the responsibility of the justice committee and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to get to the bottom of this matter and to have a full airing of this. That is why we have taken the unprecedented step of waiving cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege in regard to the matter that is under study by that committee.The members opposite do not seem to be pleased with that, because they are playing political games with it. What we are doing is allowing for a full airing of this matter at committee.
Mr. Speaker, former Ontario Liberal attorney general Michael Bryant stated that a crime may have been committed when the Prime Minister conspired to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with bribery. Legal experts, including a former judge, agree that a crime may have been committed and that the RCMP should investigate.I have a simple question requiring a simple answer. Has the Prime Minister, any former or current cabinet minister, or anyone in his office been contacted by the RCMP?
Mr. Speaker, the NDP never lets the facts get in the way of a good rhetorical question.On this side of the House, we set a goal of achieving the lowest poverty level in Canada's history, and yesterday the Canadian income survey showed that we hit our first target three years ahead of schedule. In the first two years of our mandate, our investments helped to lift 820,000 people out of poverty, including almost 300,000 children. That is what we are doing to help people in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois and all Quebeckers know very well that our government takes very seriously its responsibility to protect good jobs, promote economic growth and stand up for workers.That is exactly what we are doing, but we will always do so in accordance with the laws and rules in place, while respecting our institutions and respecting the independence of our justice system. That is what all Canadians expect.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is not unprecedented. Other prime ministers have waived full privilege when it related to investigations during their time in office.For weeks, the Prime Minister was speaking for the former attorney general. Now he is deciding what is relevant. He is deciding what he is going to allow her to speak.This is a very simple question. Why will he not waive privilege for the time period between when she lost her job and when she resigned from cabinet? What is he trying to hide?
Mr. Speaker, the former attorney general of Canada will be testifying before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights this afternoon, but that does not mean that we will get the whole story. Any actions or communications involving her that occurred after January 14, the day she was shuffled to Veterans Affairs, are off limits. Allowing her to tell only half the story could leave us with more questions than answers.Why go to so much effort to control what she wants to say?Why not allow her to talk about stepping down from cabinet, for example?Is the Prime Minister's Office that afraid of what she has to say?
Mr. Speaker, no one should be breaking the law to protect jobs.On December 19, the Prime Minister and his cabinet had lunch with the Clerk of the Privy Council. Later in the day, the clerk called the former attorney general to ask her to stop the trial. The Prime Minister, his chief of staff, his principal secretary and the Clerk of the Privy Council are all involved.What lawful authority did the Prime Minister have to instruct the clerk to put pressure on the former attorney general? Canadians want to know.
Mr. Speaker, it is troubling to see that the Conservatives have chosen to play politics by going after SNC-Lavalin workers and workers across the country.Quebeckers and Canadians know very well that we will always defend jobs on this side of the House. We will always defend workers, but we will also respect the rule of law and our institutions, including the independence of our justice system. The Conservatives' attacks will not change this.
Mr. Speaker, no, not to our knowledge.
Mr. Speaker, the problem is that she will not be able to say anything about what happened after January 14. For example, she will likely not be able to explain why, after she was shuffled, she wrote that it is a pillar of our democracy that our system of justice be free from all political interference.She will not be able to explain why she resigned from cabinet and, most importantly, she will not be able to tell us what she said during her unprecedented appearance before cabinet following her resignation, which could shed a lot of light on the situation.If the Prime Minister can give five different versions of the story, why will he not lift all of the constraints preventing the former minister of justice from telling her version?
Mr. Speaker, unlike the Harper Conservatives, we take very seriously the institutions, the processes and the procedures that are fundamental to our system of justice, to the rule of law and to our very institutions. That is why we take great care when we take an unprecedented step like waiving solicitor-client privilege in this matter, like waiving cabinet confidentiality in this matter. I think it is important that Canadians get a chance to hear from a broad range of perspectives and that is exactly what they will be able to do.
Mr. Speaker, in less than an hour, the former attorney general will be testifying before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Unfortunately, she will not be able to speak her full truth because the Prime Minister will not let her. We are not the ones saying this. It is the former attorney general herself who said it.However, the Prime Minister can reassure Canadians by answering a very simple question here in the House.Did anyone in the PMO or in a minister's office contact SNC-Lavalin representatives to assure them that they would not have to go to trial, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, we take very seriously the matter before the justice committee and indeed the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That is why, as a government, we were determined to take the unprecedented step of waiving cabinet confidentiality, of waiving solicitor-client privilege, which allows the former attorney general to speak fully to the matter in question. This is something that Canadians expect. They want to be able to hear different perspectives on this matter and that is exactly what they are going to get to hear.
Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, the member opposite was part of a government that did not do a good job of protecting jobs or of creating growth for Canadians. Indeed, it had the lowest growth rate of any prime minister since R. B. Bennett in the depths of the Great Depression.At the same time, in those 10 years, we saw countless examples of that government's torquing the truth in favour of partisan interests and disrespecting the judiciary, including Supreme Court judges.We will consistently stand up to create jobs, to protect jobs and to protect our institutions at the exact same time.
Mr. Speaker, this is the government that moved forward on the historic accessible Canada act for the first time, moved forward with a comprehensive approach to removing barriers for all Canadians. We recognize that a country like Canada needs to make sure that every single Canadian has a full opportunity to participate and has the support and benefits they need in order to succeed and contribute to our country. That is exactly what we have done with this historic legislation. There is still much more work to do, and we will do it, but we will do it together.
Mr. Speaker, the former minister of justice has let it be known that she is still being silenced by the Prime Minister regarding the conversations that occurred between her and the Prime Minister's Office prior to her decision to step down as veterans affairs minister.The Bob Fife story broke on February 7. On February 11, the Prime Minister said that her continued presence in cabinet was a sign that everything was hunky-dory. She quit the next day.We know she was under intense pressure in that period. The simple questions are these: Who spoke to her from the PMO? What was said? Why is the Prime Minister refusing to let her tell her whole story?
Mr. Speaker, we have always stood up for good jobs across the country, stood up for employers, and stood up for the workers who work so hard every day to build a better Canada and help their families, and we always will.That is exactly what we will always do, and, at the same time, we will ensure that we always comply with the law, protect the integrity of our justice system and defend our institutions. That is what Canadians expect, especially after 10 years under a Conservative government that did not do any of those things well.
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister and Minister of Youth, I have the opportunity to spend a lot of time speaking to youth across the country. Despite what the NDP is saying, young people understand that we cannot choose between economic growth and environmental protection. We must do both at the same time.That is exactly what we are doing by putting a price on pollution and investing in safer ways to transport our resources to markets other than the United States. That is what young people expect and that is what we will continue to do.
Mr. Speaker, when the member opposite qualifies fundamental tenets of our justice system, of our cabinet government, as weasel words, we see the partisan political approach that he is desperate to take. On this side of the House, we respect our institutions, we respect the full integrity of our justice system and that is why we take very carefully and seriously the responsibility to defend those institutions and always will. That is why we took the important step of waiving in this matter the confidentiality.
Mr. Speaker, last summer the government announced Opportunity for All, Canada's first-ever national poverty reduction strategy. The strategy highlights all the investments the government has made in the fight against poverty. It also sets ambitious targets of reducing poverty by 20% by 2020, and by 50% by 2030.Could the Prime Minister tell the House what progress is being made towards meeting these targets?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's order in council prevents the former attorney general from discussing her resignation from cabinet, the presentation that she gave to cabinet following her resignation and discussions that she had upon being fired as the Attorney General, all matters relevant to getting to the heart of the truth.Why is the Prime Minister trying to silence his former attorney general? What is he afraid of?
Mr. Speaker, we did what Canadians expect us to, which is to stand up for jobs, defend Canadian workers and defend the economic growth that did not happen under 10 years of Stephen Harper, while at the same time protecting our institutions, standing up for the rule of law and defending the integrity and the independence of our judicial system.That is what this government has always done. That is what we will always do.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has expressed his admiration for dictators and some might say that he wants to lead Canada in that way.In the SNC-Lavalin case, the former attorney general wanted to enforce the law, but that did not suit the Prime Minister. He, his chief of staff, his principal secretary, and even the Clerk of the Privy Council pressured the former attorney general to halt the trial, which began on October 29.What lawful authority did the Prime Minister have to get his collaborators to talk to the former attorney general's staff on December 18?
Check the fine print, Mr. Speaker, because there is an important detail that the Prime Minister is leaving out. Something happened between the time the former attorney general lost her job for speaking truth to power until the day she resigned from cabinet that the Prime Minister is desperate to keep hidden from Canadians. Could the Prime Minister confirm that sometime in that period of time something was said to the former attorney general that proved she lost her job because she stood up to him?
Mr. Speaker, we took the unprecedented step of waiving both cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege in the matter currently under study by the justice committee and the Ethics Commissioner. This is a significant step that we took. We know that Canadians need to hear different perspectives on this matter. That is why we welcome the work the committee is doing and we welcome the work the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is doing on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister respects the committee, let it do its job. Let it hear from the former attorney general. We are asking the Prime Minister, and Canadians deserve the truth. They deserve an answer from the Prime Minister right now. Will the Prime Minister waive the privilege? Will he waive the cabinet confidentiality and let the former attorney general speak freely about her time as veterans affair minister and speak freely about their meeting in Vancouver? Will the Prime Minister waive the privilege?
Mr. Speaker, every step of the way, we will stand up for Canadian workers. We will stand up for good jobs right across this country. We will do so in a way that is consistent with our values, with our expectations and with the rule of law. That is the matter we will stay focused on in this. We will defend Canadian jobs, and we will ensure that we are being consistent, both with our values and with the rules and laws in place.
Mr. Speaker, we have done what Canadians expect of us every step of the way. We have stood up for jobs, stood up for workers and invested in our country's economic growth, while at the same time defending our institutions, standing up for the rule of law and defending the independence of our judiciary. That is what we have always done, and that is what we will always do, to protect jobs and to protect our institutions at the exact same time.
Mr. Speaker, that is what the Prime Minister would like Canadians to believe, but the facts tell otherwise. He is refusing to let his former attorney general share her entire story. Here is what she had to say yesterday, the Order in Council leaves in place whatever restraints there are on my ability to speak freely about matters that occurred after I left the post of Attorney General.What happened between the time she was removed as attorney general to the day that she resigned that the Prime Minister is so desperate to keep hidden?
Mr. Speaker, the matter before the committee and the Ethics Commissioner is very specific. That is why we have enabled the former attorney general to speak fully to the matter currently under study by the committee. This is a significant step that we took. The decision to waive solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality is not one to be taken lightly. In this case, and for this important study, I think it was the right thing to do.
Mr. Speaker, in just a moment, I will ask for the unanimous consent of the House, because the National Energy Board has once again failed in its duty regarding official languages. This is such a serious situation that I am sure you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House condemn the actions of the National Energy Board, which tabled its reconsideration report on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project in English only, and call on the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie to use her regulatory powers to ensure that all reports from federal agencies are systematically tabled in both official languages.
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite obviously misunderstands what the order in council is all about. It is actually about waiving solicitor-client privilege and waiving cabinet confidentiality so that the former attorney general can speak to
Mr. Speaker, defending our institutions, defending the rule of law and defending the independence and rigour of our justice system is something that we take very, very seriously. The decision to waive solicitor-client privilege and, indeed, cabinet confidentiality is not one to be taken lightly, but it is one that we took in this case because it is important that the justice committee and that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner are able to do their work. That is why we took that unprecedented step.
Mr. Speaker, we have made historic investments in infrastructure, including in partnership with indigenous communities right across the country. I personally had the pleasure and honour to spend some time with the community in Hatchet Lake one winter a few years ago and got to see directly the challenges they are facing. That is why this government is committed to reconciliation, to investment, to partnership with indigenous communities right across this country to make sure we are building a better future together for everyone in this country.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that he needed to protect SNC-Lavalin from conviction, because they would not be able to bid on federal work and the business would go under.However, yesterday, his public services minister confirmed that a simple policy change would have allowed the company, even after conviction, to bid on those federal contracts and continue to operate.Given that revelation, and given that he was not doing this to protect workers, who was the Prime Minister trying to protect?
Mr. Speaker, first nations leaders from Manitoba came to Ottawa this week to once again call on the government to respect their rights and move on treaty land entitlement. For two months they asked to meet with the new minister, but he could not be bothered. When he was appointed, he said he had a lot to learn, yet he could not bother to walk two blocks to meet with leaders who want to help him understand his historic obligation. Learning? This is failing the test.Will the Prime Minister direct his minister to do his homework, and will the government stop disrespecting first nations' rights to land?
Mr. Speaker, we know Canadians need access to telecommunications services to participate fully and to succeed in a digital economy. Canadians have expressed concerns about the quality, coverage and, most significantly, the cost of these essential services, and they are looking for lower-cost options and innovative services. Can the Prime Minister please update the House on our government's work to ensure that Canadians have access to quality services at more affordable prices?
Mr. Speaker, I am extraordinarily proud of the work that the Minister of Indigenous Services is doing every single day to build a better future for indigenous peoples.In regard to northern Manitoba, it was this government that moved forward to restore rail service to Churchill. We did that in a way that partnered with indigenous communities along the way and that gave them ownership over the railroad to make sure they are integral and empowered in the future of northern Manitoba and, indeed, of northern Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the Prime Minister is aware that the former attorney general has written a letter to the justice committee explaining that the order in council that the Prime Minister keeps bragging about falls far short of what is required. She said: [It] does nothing to release me from any restrictions that apply to communications while I served as Minister of Veterans Affairs.... The letter goes on: [and it] leaves in place whatever restraints there are on my ability to speak freely about matters that occurred after I left the post of Attorney General. Why has the Prime Minister kept the restraints on the former attorney general unless he is afraid of what she is going to say?
Mr. Speaker, if we need to hear all perspectives, then we need to hear her full perspective. Will the Prime Minister do this very simple thing. Will he write a letter right now, he has just over an hour, and tell the former attorney general that she can speak about the time when she was veterans affairs minister, she can talk about their conversations in Vancouver before she resigned and she can talk about what she told cabinet last week. It is very simple. Will he do that right now?
Mr. Speaker, the members opposite have moved entirely off the actual matter in question, which is regarding what happened while she was attorney general and minister of justice. This is something we know Canadians want to hear and that is why we have taken the unprecedented step of waiving cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege to enable the former attorney general to speak to the matter it is studying at committee.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for MississaugaLakeshore for his hard work and thoughtful questions. We are constantly listening to the concerns of Canadians. We are taking action to increase competition, because that is the best way to bring down the costs of services like Internet and cellphone plans.Yesterday, we proposed clear direction to the CRTC to build on our work to date. Telecommunications policy decisions must put consumers first. We need to ensure that Canadians can get the access they need at prices they can afford, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Mr. Speaker, the issue that is before the justice committee and before the Ethics Commissioner is one that Canadians want to see answers to and want to hear diverse perspectives on. That is why we waived cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege to enable the former attorney general to speak fully to the matter under study.That is what Canadians expect and that is exactly what we have delivered. The principle of confidentiality, at cabinet and in solicitor-client privilege, is an important one.
Mr. Speaker, the question that is before the justice committee and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner is entirely focused on her time as Attorney General. We know that the system of cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege is a fundamental tenet, extraordinarily important both to our democracy and to our system of justice. That is why we took the unprecedented step of waiving those elements so that Canadians could hear directly from the former attorney general on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, we have empowered the former attorney general to share all of her experiences and give full testimony regarding the matter before that committee.I understand that the members opposite are using this matter to try to score political points. We on this side are interested in the rigorous process that is under way. That is what we always do, and what we will always do. We respect our institutions, while also standing up to protect the workers and businesses across this country that deserve to be supported, not attacked, as the opposition is doing.
Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Official Languages and I are extremely proud to be starting our study on the modernization of the Official Languages Act, which is turning 50 this year. This act has helped Canadians make great strides in linguistic development and identity building over the years. That is why the committee has launched this study. Canada's official languages are a source of national pride and an integral part of our identity. Could the Prime Minister tell us how the government will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Official Languages Act?
Mr. Speaker, for 10 years Canadians watched Stephen Harper and his Conservatives disrespect their institutions, play games with the rule of law, and meddle with the independence of the judiciary. They expect a government to stand up and defend our institutions, including one of the fundamental tenets of our justice system, which is solicitor-client privilege, and indeed a fundamental tenet of our government, which is cabinet confidentiality. When we made the decision to waive those elements so that the former attorney general can speak to this matter, that is a big deal.
Mr. Speaker, what our government has done every step of the way is stand up and defend workers and jobs in Quebec and across the country, and stand up for the companies and the work that Canadians do across the country.We will always stand up for Canadian jobs, while respecting the independence of our judicial system, our institutions, and the rule of law.That is what we have always done and that is what we will always do.
Mr. Speaker, we set a goal of achieving the lowest poverty level in Canada's history. Yesterday the Canadian income survey showed that we hit our first target three years ahead of schedule.In the first two years of our mandate, our investments helped lift over 820,000 people out of poverty, which includes 278,000 children. Thanks to programs like the Canada child benefit, which was of course opposed by the Conservatives, we are giving every Canadian a real and fair chance at success.
Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite has deep respect for our justice system and for the fundamentals of that justice system and knows full well that solicitor-client privilege is one of the foundational tenets of our justice system and that cabinet confidentiality is one of the fundamental necessary tenets of the functioning of our democratic system. That is why, when we take the step to waive cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege in this matter, he must recognize it as a significant step toward
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the former attorney general wrote to the chair of the justice committee to indicate that the Prime Minister's order in council falls short of what is required in terms of sharing all relevant information. The Prime Minister has just a little over an hour. If he truly has nothing to hide, then why will he not simply lift all solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality? What is he afraid of?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for MadawaskaRestigouche for his hard work on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Conservative politicians across the country are attacking the French fact in Canada, backed by the Conservative Party leader across the aisle. We will always stand up for minority language communities. I have asked the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie to review and modernize the Official Languages Act. Our goal is to ensure that the act responds to the challenges arising from the transformations that Canada has undergone and to always protect our official language minority communities.
Mr. Speaker, the matter in question before the justice committee and before the Ethics Commissioner is focused on her time as Attorney General, and that is why when we went forward to waive confidentiality in regard to solicitor-client privilege, in regard to cabinet confidence, we took very seriously this unprecedented step, because we know that Canadians need to hear all perspectives on this. That is why we are moving forward in a responsible way that respects our institutions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There seemed to have been some confusion on the Liberal side during question period. The Liberals seem to think that the allegations that were made today come from the Conservative side, but it is, in fact, from the former attorney general herself. I would ask for unanimous consent to table the letter that the former attorney general wrote to the justice committee, which indicates that the Prime Minister's actions fall short of what is required when it comes waiving privilege in this case.
Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning, I have always been very clear about what we did.As we have always done, we will continue to stand up for jobs, workers and businesses across the country while respecting and protecting our institutions, the rule of law and the principles of our democracy.That is what we are doing now by waiving solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality so the former attorney general can speak to the matter.
Mr. Speaker, we have confidence in the processes under way at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the office of the Ethics Commissioner. That is why we waived the confidentiality requirement that was preventing the former attorney general from speaking fully at committee. We want her to share her perspective on the matter before the committee, and that is exactly what we have allowed her to do.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is preventing the former attorney general from speaking. She specifically said that he is preventing her from speaking about her time when she was veterans affairs minister, about the conversations they had just before she resigned, specifically in Vancouver, and from what she told cabinet last week. Why is it that the Prime Minister only wants his version of their interactions to be disclosed? What is he hiding?
Mr. Speaker, the principle of solicitor-client privilege and the principle of cabinet confidentiality are fundamental tenets of our justice system and, indeed, of our system of government. We do not and will never take those principles lightly.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not answering the question. Will the Prime Minister, right now, give permission to the former attorney general to speak freely about her time as veterans affairs minister, about the meetings she had with the Prime Minister in Vancouver and her presentation to cabinet last week, and if not, why not?
Mr. Speaker, it is important for Canadians to hear different perspectives on this matter.We announced that, where appropriate, we are waiving solicitor-client privilege, cabinet confidentiality and all other obligations of confidentiality with respect to the matters being studied by the justice committee and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. We want the committee to continue its important work. We support the work of this committee and, of course, the work of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.
Mr. Speaker, this is what SNC-Lavalin's intervention looked like: 30 thousand dollars' worth of Canadian prostitutes given to Moammar Gadhafi's son. This is the so-called victimless crime that our woke feminist Prime Minister is moving mountains to cover up.When did the Prime Minister learn that SNC-Lavalin paid for prostitutes for Moammar Gadhafi's son?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been refusing to tell the truth since the news about SNC-Lavalin broke.For nearly three weeks now, the message has changed daily. He even refused to let the former attorney general speak while allowing the current Attorney General to speak everyday. It is completely ridiculous.After question period today, the Prime Minister will finally let the member for Vancouver Granville talk about what happened, but only some of what happened.The Prime Minister promised to be different, so why is he not giving her free rein to speak her truth?
Mr. Speaker, throughout the byelection in Burnaby South, people made it clear to Jagmeet Singh that the Liberals only care about the wealthy and the well connected. Everyday Canadians are struggling to put food on the table. They cannot afford the medication that they need. While the Liberals will move heaven and earth to help the corporate elite, everyday Canadians are left behind. All Canadians deserve safe, affordable housing, public universal pharmacare and food on the table. No more delays. No more excuses. Will the Prime Minister put everyday Canadians first for a change, and make real investments in budget 2019 for the people who are most in need?
Mr. Speaker, it is always we will, we will, we will.The Prime Minister has known for over a year now that SNC-Lavalin risks losing all government contracts if there is no remediation agreement. His inaction has cost SNC-Lavalin $1.6 billion over the past few months. Funds belonging to the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, the nest egg of Quebeckers, are at stake. His inaction could cost Quebec thousands of jobs and a head office. Why has the Prime Minister turned his back on the workers at SNC-Lavalin?
Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, I stood in this House to raise the alarm on the increase in rejections of disability tax credit applications. It is a disturbing fact that there is a 60% increase in rejections. To make matters worse, Liberals have clawed back over $26 million from people with severe and prolonged impairments. They still have not fixed this problem. Liberals are clearly out of touch. What Canadians really want to know is how the Liberals could let this happen.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister conspired to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with bribery, and this is what the bribery looked like
Mr. Speaker, northerners are taking part in the ice road jigging challenge to raise awareness about ice road communities. Their message is clear: We need roads that work all year to bring supplies to our communities and to travel to doctor appointments. The Liberals do not seem to understand the climate change is making Hatchet Lake first nation inaccessible because the ice roads are open for shorter periods of time. Why does the Liberal government keep neglecting the basic needs of northerners?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that he is pleased that the former attorney general can share her perspective on SNC-Lavalin. Now we know why. He is still dictating what she can and cannot say about this Liberal corruption scandal.If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, why is he still trying to silence the former attorney general?
Mr. Speaker, diverse perspectives, yes, there is truth and non-truth. I remember in Sunday school they said that what is whispered in the backrooms is going to get shouted from the rooftops. This is the Prime Minister's opportunity to come clean. Stop hiding behind those legal-weasel mechanisms that are preventing the former minister from telling the whole truth. Will he waive the cabinet confidence on what was said to the member of Vancouver Granville in the lead-up to her resignation? Better yet, will the Prime Minister agree to testify about his interference in this case and come clean on this whole tawdry affair? Will he testify?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had no trouble talking about that period of time after he had fired her as Attorney General and until she resigned. The Clerk of the Privy Council had no trouble talking about that period of time after the former attorney general was moved along and then resigned.Why is the Prime Minister preventing the person who was fired and who resigned from sharing her full truth? Why is he placing restraints on her? Why will he not do the right thing and lift them right now?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals were dragged kicking and screaming to the justice committee before they even started to allow people to give testimony. They are still only allowing half the story to be told, the half of the story the Prime Minister is comfortable hearing. There is more to this story. Something happened. Something was said to the former attorney general or someone in the Prime Minister's Office validated her accusations that she lost her job because she would not let his friends off the hook. Is that why the Prime Minister will not waive full privilege in this matter?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in her letter to the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the former attorney general of Canada said that she would not be able to speak freely about the interference by the Prime Minister and his cronies. If we understand correctly, everyone who has appeared before the committee has been able to tell everything they knew, except the former attorney general. She will be the only witness who cannot speak freely.Could the Prime Minister just tell us why he is trying to muzzle her instead of freeing her to tell Canadians everything she knows?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister still fails to answer the question. He claimed for so long that he needed to allow SNC-Lavalin to avoid conviction so it could continue to have federal contracts. We now know from his own minister's admission that a simple policy change would allow SNC-Lavalin to go on getting contracts and employing people. That cannot be his real motivation.Obviously, the Prime Minister was protecting someone else. If this is not about protecting jobs, who was he protecting?
Mr. Speaker, the members opposite do not seem to want to talk anymore about the fact that every step of the way we stood up for good jobs across this country, we stood up for Canadian workers and we stood up for the growth of our economy, which we have been delivering on over the past three years, while at the same time defending our institutions, defending the independence of our judiciary and standing up for the rule of law. That is what Canadians expect of this government, of any government, and that is exactly what we are delivering on in every different instance.
Mr. Speaker, the best way to protect our institutions is to let everyone state the facts clearly. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister denied the former attorney general of Canada that freedom to speak. She herself acknowledged that she will not be able to speak her full truth.I will ask my very simple question again. Did anyone in the PMO or in a minister's office contact SNC-Lavalin representatives to assure them there would be no criminal trial, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, we on the opposition side are not making this up. It is the former attorney general herself, who remains a Liberal member sitting on that side of the House, who clearly said that she does not have free rein to speak before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. She will not be able to speak about what happened when she was veterans affairs minister. She will not be able to speak about what happened during the meetings in Vancouver before she resigned. She will not be able to speak about what happened during last week's cabinet meeting and Liberal caucus meeting after she resigned. She will not be able to speak her truth, because the Prime Minister does not want to give her
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we will always defend Canadian jobs. We will always defend workers. We will always defend pensioners. We will always stand up for the economic growth that, unfortunately, simply did not happen under 10 years of Conservative government.At the same time, what also did not happen under 10 years of the Conservative government is respect for our institutions, respect for the independence of law, and the kinds of thoughtful processes that actually defend our justice system. That is exactly what we are doing, at the same time: We are protecting jobs while standing up for the rule of law in this country.
Mr. Speaker, the opposition seems to be shifting in its approach, because the justice committee and indeed the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner are very much focused on a very specific question that they are looking into.We have waived privilege and we have waived cabinet confidentiality so that the former attorney general can speak fully and expansively to the matter under study. That is what Canadians expect. That is exactly what we are doing, because we understand how important it is to make sure that Canadians hear a diverse range of perspectives.
Mr. Speaker, we understand that the members opposite want to maximize the political impact of this matter. However, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Ethics Commissioner are looking into a very specific question.We waived solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality to allow the former attorney general to speak fully to the matter in question. That is exactly what Canadians deserve, and that is what we did.
Mr. Speaker, hundreds of young people sent an SOS to all politicians during the La planète s'invite à l'école event. They know that their generation will pay the price for global warming.Will the Liberals listen to them and include measures in the budget to end fossil fuel subsidies and massive investments in renewable energy?Given the urgent need to address climate change, young people understand that the time for dithering and half-measures is over. Will the Liberals recognize this and take appropriate action?
Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of the SNC-Lavalin saga, the Prime Minister sent mixed messages to Canadians. First, he refused to allow the former attorney general to speak at all. Then he gave in but only a little bit. This week, she wrote the justice committee and said that she will not be able to tell us anything as to what happened after January 14.Are these the actions of a Prime Minister who says that sunlight is the best disinfectant? Enough is enough. Will the Prime Minister let the former attorney general tell her story, speak her truth and tell Canadians exactly what happened?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that if he had allowed SNC-Lavalin to face criminal conviction, the company would be banned from getting federal contracts and would go out of business.However, in December 2015 the government gave SNC-Lavalin a deal exempting it from the ban despite criminal charges. Now the government is changing the policy to exempt SNC-Lavalin even if it gets convicted.If the Prime Minister plans to allow SNC-Lavalin to get contracts even after a conviction, why did he need to intervene to stop the company from going to trial in the first place?
Mr. Speaker, we respect the responsibility of the justice committee and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to get to the bottom of this matter and to have a full airing of this. That is why we have taken the unprecedented step of waiving cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege in regard to the matter that is under study by that committee.The members opposite do not seem to be pleased with that, because they are playing political games with it. What we are doing is allowing for a full airing of this matter at committee.
Mr. Speaker, former Ontario Liberal attorney general Michael Bryant stated that a crime may have been committed when the Prime Minister conspired to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with bribery. Legal experts, including a former judge, agree that a crime may have been committed and that the RCMP should investigate.I have a simple question requiring a simple answer. Has the Prime Minister, any former or current cabinet minister, or anyone in his office been contacted by the RCMP?
Mr. Speaker, the NDP never lets the facts get in the way of a good rhetorical question.On this side of the House, we set a goal of achieving the lowest poverty level in Canada's history, and yesterday the Canadian income survey showed that we hit our first target three years ahead of schedule. In the first two years of our mandate, our investments helped to lift 820,000 people out of poverty, including almost 300,000 children. That is what we are doing to help people in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois and all Quebeckers know very well that our government takes very seriously its responsibility to protect good jobs, promote economic growth and stand up for workers.That is exactly what we are doing, but we will always do so in accordance with the laws and rules in place, while respecting our institutions and respecting the independence of our justice system. That is what all Canadians expect.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is not unprecedented. Other prime ministers have waived full privilege when it related to investigations during their time in office.For weeks, the Prime Minister was speaking for the former attorney general. Now he is deciding what is relevant. He is deciding what he is going to allow her to speak.This is a very simple question. Why will he not waive privilege for the time period between when she lost her job and when she resigned from cabinet? What is he trying to hide?
Mr. Speaker, the former attorney general of Canada will be testifying before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights this afternoon, but that does not mean that we will get the whole story. Any actions or communications involving her that occurred after January 14, the day she was shuffled to Veterans Affairs, are off limits. Allowing her to tell only half the story could leave us with more questions than answers.Why go to so much effort to control what she wants to say?Why not allow her to talk about stepping down from cabinet, for example?Is the Prime Minister's Office that afraid of what she has to say?
Mr. Speaker, no one should be breaking the law to protect jobs.On December 19, the Prime Minister and his cabinet had lunch with the Clerk of the Privy Council. Later in the day, the clerk called the former attorney general to ask her to stop the trial. The Prime Minister, his chief of staff, his principal secretary and the Clerk of the Privy Council are all involved.What lawful authority did the Prime Minister have to instruct the clerk to put pressure on the former attorney general? Canadians want to know.
Mr. Speaker, it is troubling to see that the Conservatives have chosen to play politics by going after SNC-Lavalin workers and workers across the country.Quebeckers and Canadians know very well that we will always defend jobs on this side of the House. We will always defend workers, but we will also respect the rule of law and our institutions, including the independence of our justice system. The Conservatives' attacks will not change this.
Mr. Speaker, no, not to our knowledge.
Mr. Speaker, the problem is that she will not be able to say anything about what happened after January 14. For example, she will likely not be able to explain why, after she was shuffled, she wrote that it is a pillar of our democracy that our system of justice be free from all political interference.She will not be able to explain why she resigned from cabinet and, most importantly, she will not be able to tell us what she said during her unprecedented appearance before cabinet following her resignation, which could shed a lot of light on the situation.If the Prime Minister can give five different versions of the story, why will he not lift all of the constraints preventing the former minister of justice from telling her version?
Mr. Speaker, unlike the Harper Conservatives, we take very seriously the institutions, the processes and the procedures that are fundamental to our system of justice, to the rule of law and to our very institutions. That is why we take great care when we take an unprecedented step like waiving solicitor-client privilege in this matter, like waiving cabinet confidentiality in this matter. I think it is important that Canadians get a chance to hear from a broad range of perspectives and that is exactly what they will be able to do.
Mr. Speaker, in less than an hour, the former attorney general will be testifying before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Unfortunately, she will not be able to speak her full truth because the Prime Minister will not let her. We are not the ones saying this. It is the former attorney general herself who said it.However, the Prime Minister can reassure Canadians by answering a very simple question here in the House.Did anyone in the PMO or in a minister's office contact SNC-Lavalin representatives to assure them that they would not have to go to trial, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, we take very seriously the matter before the justice committee and indeed the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That is why, as a government, we were determined to take the unprecedented step of waiving cabinet confidentiality, of waiving solicitor-client privilege, which allows the former attorney general to speak fully to the matter in question. This is something that Canadians expect. They want to be able to hear different perspectives on this matter and that is exactly what they are going to get to hear.
Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, the member opposite was part of a government that did not do a good job of protecting jobs or of creating growth for Canadians. Indeed, it had the lowest growth rate of any prime minister since R. B. Bennett in the depths of the Great Depression.At the same time, in those 10 years, we saw countless examples of that government's torquing the truth in favour of partisan interests and disrespecting the judiciary, including Supreme Court judges.We will consistently stand up to create jobs, to protect jobs and to protect our institutions at the exact same time.
Mr. Speaker, this is the government that moved forward on the historic accessible Canada act for the first time, moved forward with a comprehensive approach to removing barriers for all Canadians. We recognize that a country like Canada needs to make sure that every single Canadian has a full opportunity to participate and has the support and benefits they need in order to succeed and contribute to our country. That is exactly what we have done with this historic legislation. There is still much more work to do, and we will do it, but we will do it together.
Mr. Speaker, the former minister of justice has let it be known that she is still being silenced by the Prime Minister regarding the conversations that occurred between her and the Prime Minister's Office prior to her decision to step down as veterans affairs minister.The Bob Fife story broke on February 7. On February 11, the Prime Minister said that her continued presence in cabinet was a sign that everything was hunky-dory. She quit the next day.We know she was under intense pressure in that period. The simple questions are these: Who spoke to her from the PMO? What was said? Why is the Prime Minister refusing to let her tell her whole story?
Mr. Speaker, we have always stood up for good jobs across the country, stood up for employers, and stood up for the workers who work so hard every day to build a better Canada and help their families, and we always will.That is exactly what we will always do, and, at the same time, we will ensure that we always comply with the law, protect the integrity of our justice system and defend our institutions. That is what Canadians expect, especially after 10 years under a Conservative government that did not do any of those things well.
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister and Minister of Youth, I have the opportunity to spend a lot of time speaking to youth across the country. Despite what the NDP is saying, young people understand that we cannot choose between economic growth and environmental protection. We must do both at the same time.That is exactly what we are doing by putting a price on pollution and investing in safer ways to transport our resources to markets other than the United States. That is what young people expect and that is what we will continue to do.
Mr. Speaker, when the member opposite qualifies fundamental tenets of our justice system, of our cabinet government, as weasel words, we see the partisan political approach that he is desperate to take. On this side of the House, we respect our institutions, we respect the full integrity of our justice system and that is why we take very carefully and seriously the responsibility to defend those institutions and always will. That is why we took the important step of waiving in this matter the confidentiality.
Mr. Speaker, last summer the government announced Opportunity for All, Canada's first-ever national poverty reduction strategy. The strategy highlights all the investments the government has made in the fight against poverty. It also sets ambitious targets of reducing poverty by 20% by 2020, and by 50% by 2030.Could the Prime Minister tell the House what progress is being made towards meeting these targets?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's order in council prevents the former attorney general from discussing her resignation from cabinet, the presentation that she gave to cabinet following her resignation and discussions that she had upon being fired as the Attorney General, all matters relevant to getting to the heart of the truth.Why is the Prime Minister trying to silence his former attorney general? What is he afraid of?
Mr. Speaker, we did what Canadians expect us to, which is to stand up for jobs, defend Canadian workers and defend the economic growth that did not happen under 10 years of Stephen Harper, while at the same time protecting our institutions, standing up for the rule of law and defending the integrity and the independence of our judicial system.That is what this government has always done. That is what we will always do.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has expressed his admiration for dictators and some might say that he wants to lead Canada in that way.In the SNC-Lavalin case, the former attorney general wanted to enforce the law, but that did not suit the Prime Minister. He, his chief of staff, his principal secretary, and even the Clerk of the Privy Council pressured the former attorney general to halt the trial, which began on October 29.What lawful authority did the Prime Minister have to get his collaborators to talk to the former attorney general's staff on December 18?
Check the fine print, Mr. Speaker, because there is an important detail that the Prime Minister is leaving out. Something happened between the time the former attorney general lost her job for speaking truth to power until the day she resigned from cabinet that the Prime Minister is desperate to keep hidden from Canadians. Could the Prime Minister confirm that sometime in that period of time something was said to the former attorney general that proved she lost her job because she stood up to him?
Mr. Speaker, we took the unprecedented step of waiving both cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege in the matter currently under study by the justice committee and the Ethics Commissioner. This is a significant step that we took. We know that Canadians need to hear different perspectives on this matter. That is why we welcome the work the committee is doing and we welcome the work the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is doing on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister respects the committee, let it do its job. Let it hear from the former attorney general. We are asking the Prime Minister, and Canadians deserve the truth. They deserve an answer from the Prime Minister right now. Will the Prime Minister waive the privilege? Will he waive the cabinet confidentiality and let the former attorney general speak freely about her time as veterans affair minister and speak freely about their meeting in Vancouver? Will the Prime Minister waive the privilege?
Mr. Speaker, every step of the way, we will stand up for Canadian workers. We will stand up for good jobs right across this country. We will do so in a way that is consistent with our values, with our expectations and with the rule of law. That is the matter we will stay focused on in this. We will defend Canadian jobs, and we will ensure that we are being consistent, both with our values and with the rules and laws in place.
Mr. Speaker, we have done what Canadians expect of us every step of the way. We have stood up for jobs, stood up for workers and invested in our country's economic growth, while at the same time defending our institutions, standing up for the rule of law and defending the independence of our judiciary. That is what we have always done, and that is what we will always do, to protect jobs and to protect our institutions at the exact same time.
Mr. Speaker, that is what the Prime Minister would like Canadians to believe, but the facts tell otherwise. He is refusing to let his former attorney general share her entire story. Here is what she had to say yesterday, the Order in Council leaves in place whatever restraints there are on my ability to speak freely about matters that occurred after I left the post of Attorney General.What happened between the time she was removed as attorney general to the day that she resigned that the Prime Minister is so desperate to keep hidden?
Mr. Speaker, the matter before the committee and the Ethics Commissioner is very specific. That is why we have enabled the former attorney general to speak fully to the matter currently under study by the committee. This is a significant step that we took. The decision to waive solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality is not one to be taken lightly. In this case, and for this important study, I think it was the right thing to do.
Mr. Speaker, in just a moment, I will ask for the unanimous consent of the House, because the National Energy Board has once again failed in its duty regarding official languages. This is such a serious situation that I am sure you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House condemn the actions of the National Energy Board, which tabled its reconsideration report on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project in English only, and call on the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie to use her regulatory powers to ensure that all reports from federal agencies are systematically tabled in both official languages.
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite obviously misunderstands what the order in council is all about. It is actually about waiving solicitor-client privilege and waiving cabinet confidentiality so that the former attorney general can speak to
Mr. Speaker, defending our institutions, defending the rule of law and defending the independence and rigour of our justice system is something that we take very, very seriously. The decision to waive solicitor-client privilege and, indeed, cabinet confidentiality is not one to be taken lightly, but it is one that we took in this case because it is important that the justice committee and that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner are able to do their work. That is why we took that unprecedented step.
Mr. Speaker, we have made historic investments in infrastructure, including in partnership with indigenous communities right across the country. I personally had the pleasure and honour to spend some time with the community in Hatchet Lake one winter a few years ago and got to see directly the challenges they are facing. That is why this government is committed to reconciliation, to investment, to partnership with indigenous communities right across this country to make sure we are building a better future together for everyone in this country.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that he needed to protect SNC-Lavalin from conviction, because they would not be able to bid on federal work and the business would go under.However, yesterday, his public services minister confirmed that a simple policy change would have allowed the company, even after conviction, to bid on those federal contracts and continue to operate.Given that revelation, and given that he was not doing this to protect workers, who was the Prime Minister trying to protect?
Mr. Speaker, first nations leaders from Manitoba came to Ottawa this week to once again call on the government to respect their rights and move on treaty land entitlement. For two months they asked to meet with the new minister, but he could not be bothered. When he was appointed, he said he had a lot to learn, yet he could not bother to walk two blocks to meet with leaders who want to help him understand his historic obligation. Learning? This is failing the test.Will the Prime Minister direct his minister to do his homework, and will the government stop disrespecting first nations' rights to land?
Mr. Speaker, we know Canadians need access to telecommunications services to participate fully and to succeed in a digital economy. Canadians have expressed concerns about the quality, coverage and, most significantly, the cost of these essential services, and they are looking for lower-cost options and innovative services. Can the Prime Minister please update the House on our government's work to ensure that Canadians have access to quality services at more affordable prices?
Mr. Speaker, I am extraordinarily proud of the work that the Minister of Indigenous Services is doing every single day to build a better future for indigenous peoples.In regard to northern Manitoba, it was this government that moved forward to restore rail service to Churchill. We did that in a way that partnered with indigenous communities along the way and that gave them ownership over the railroad to make sure they are integral and empowered in the future of northern Manitoba and, indeed, of northern Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the Prime Minister is aware that the former attorney general has written a letter to the justice committee explaining that the order in council that the Prime Minister keeps bragging about falls far short of what is required. She said: [It] does nothing to release me from any restrictions that apply to communications while I served as Minister of Veterans Affairs.... The letter goes on: [and it] leaves in place whatever restraints there are on my ability to speak freely about matters that occurred after I left the post of Attorney General. Why has the Prime Minister kept the restraints on the former attorney general unless he is afraid of what she is going to say?
Mr. Speaker, if we need to hear all perspectives, then we need to hear her full perspective. Will the Prime Minister do this very simple thing. Will he write a letter right now, he has just over an hour, and tell the former attorney general that she can speak about the time when she was veterans affairs minister, she can talk about their conversations in Vancouver before she resigned and she can talk about what she told cabinet last week. It is very simple. Will he do that right now?
Mr. Speaker, the members opposite have moved entirely off the actual matter in question, which is regarding what happened while she was attorney general and minister of justice. This is something we know Canadians want to hear and that is why we have taken the unprecedented step of waiving cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege to enable the former attorney general to speak to the matter it is studying at committee.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for MississaugaLakeshore for his hard work and thoughtful questions. We are constantly listening to the concerns of Canadians. We are taking action to increase competition, because that is the best way to bring down the costs of services like Internet and cellphone plans.Yesterday, we proposed clear direction to the CRTC to build on our work to date. Telecommunications policy decisions must put consumers first. We need to ensure that Canadians can get the access they need at prices they can afford, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Mr. Speaker, the issue that is before the justice committee and before the Ethics Commissioner is one that Canadians want to see answers to and want to hear diverse perspectives on. That is why we waived cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege to enable the former attorney general to speak fully to the matter under study.That is what Canadians expect and that is exactly what we have delivered. The principle of confidentiality, at cabinet and in solicitor-client privilege, is an important one.
Mr. Speaker, the question that is before the justice committee and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner is entirely focused on her time as Attorney General. We know that the system of cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege is a fundamental tenet, extraordinarily important both to our democracy and to our system of justice. That is why we took the unprecedented step of waiving those elements so that Canadians could hear directly from the former attorney general on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, we have empowered the former attorney general to share all of her experiences and give full testimony regarding the matter before that committee.I understand that the members opposite are using this matter to try to score political points. We on this side are interested in the rigorous process that is under way. That is what we always do, and what we will always do. We respect our institutions, while also standing up to protect the workers and businesses across this country that deserve to be supported, not attacked, as the opposition is doing.
Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Official Languages and I are extremely proud to be starting our study on the modernization of the Official Languages Act, which is turning 50 this year. This act has helped Canadians make great strides in linguistic development and identity building over the years. That is why the committee has launched this study. Canada's official languages are a source of national pride and an integral part of our identity. Could the Prime Minister tell us how the government will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Official Languages Act?
Mr. Speaker, for 10 years Canadians watched Stephen Harper and his Conservatives disrespect their institutions, play games with the rule of law, and meddle with the independence of the judiciary. They expect a government to stand up and defend our institutions, including one of the fundamental tenets of our justice system, which is solicitor-client privilege, and indeed a fundamental tenet of our government, which is cabinet confidentiality. When we made the decision to waive those elements so that the former attorney general can speak to this matter, that is a big deal.
Mr. Speaker, what our government has done every step of the way is stand up and defend workers and jobs in Quebec and across the country, and stand up for the companies and the work that Canadians do across the country.We will always stand up for Canadian jobs, while respecting the independence of our judicial system, our institutions, and the rule of law.That is what we have always done and that is what we will always do.
Mr. Speaker, we set a goal of achieving the lowest poverty level in Canada's history. Yesterday the Canadian income survey showed that we hit our first target three years ahead of schedule.In the first two years of our mandate, our investments helped lift over 820,000 people out of poverty, which includes 278,000 children. Thanks to programs like the Canada child benefit, which was of course opposed by the Conservatives, we are giving every Canadian a real and fair chance at success.
Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite has deep respect for our justice system and for the fundamentals of that justice system and knows full well that solicitor-client privilege is one of the foundational tenets of our justice system and that cabinet confidentiality is one of the fundamental necessary tenets of the functioning of our democratic system. That is why, when we take the step to waive cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege in this matter, he must recognize it as a significant step toward
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the former attorney general wrote to the chair of the justice committee to indicate that the Prime Minister's order in council falls short of what is required in terms of sharing all relevant information. The Prime Minister has just a little over an hour. If he truly has nothing to hide, then why will he not simply lift all solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality? What is he afraid of?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for MadawaskaRestigouche for his hard work on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Conservative politicians across the country are attacking the French fact in Canada, backed by the Conservative Party leader across the aisle. We will always stand up for minority language communities. I have asked the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie to review and modernize the Official Languages Act. Our goal is to ensure that the act responds to the challenges arising from the transformations that Canada has undergone and to always protect our official language minority communities.
Mr. Speaker, the matter in question before the justice committee and before the Ethics Commissioner is focused on her time as Attorney General, and that is why when we went forward to waive confidentiality in regard to solicitor-client privilege, in regard to cabinet confidence, we took very seriously this unprecedented step, because we know that Canadians need to hear all perspectives on this. That is why we are moving forward in a responsible way that respects our institutions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There seemed to have been some confusion on the Liberal side during question period. The Liberals seem to think that the allegations that were made today come from the Conservative side, but it is, in fact, from the former attorney general herself. I would ask for unanimous consent to table the letter that the former attorney general wrote to the justice committee, which indicates that the Prime Minister's actions fall short of what is required when it comes waiving privilege in this case.
Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning, I have always been very clear about what we did.As we have always done, we will continue to stand up for jobs, workers and businesses across the country while respecting and protecting our institutions, the rule of law and the principles of our democracy.That is what we are doing now by waiving solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality so the former attorney general can speak to the matter.
Mr. Speaker, we have confidence in the processes under way at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the office of the Ethics Commissioner. That is why we waived the confidentiality requirement that was preventing the former attorney general from speaking fully at committee. We want her to share her perspective on the matter before the committee, and that is exactly what we have allowed her to do.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is preventing the former attorney general from speaking. She specifically said that he is preventing her from speaking about her time when she was veterans affairs minister, about the conversations they had just before she resigned, specifically in Vancouver, and from what she told cabinet last week. Why is it that the Prime Minister only wants his version of their interactions to be disclosed? What is he hiding?
Mr. Speaker, the principle of solicitor-client privilege and the principle of cabinet confidentiality are fundamental tenets of our justice system and, indeed, of our system of government. We do not and will never take those principles lightly.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not answering the question. Will the Prime Minister, right now, give permission to the former attorney general to speak freely about her time as veterans affairs minister, about the meetings she had with the Prime Minister in Vancouver and her presentation to cabinet last week, and if not, why not?
Mr. Speaker, it is important for Canadians to hear different perspectives on this matter.We announced that, where appropriate, we are waiving solicitor-client privilege, cabinet confidentiality and all other obligations of confidentiality with respect to the matters being studied by the justice committee and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. We want the committee to continue its important work. We support the work of this committee and, of course, the work of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.
Most negative speeches
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister conspired to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with bribery, and this is what the bribery looked like
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that if he had allowed SNC-Lavalin to face criminal conviction, the company would be banned from getting federal contracts and would go out of business.However, in December 2015 the government gave SNC-Lavalin a deal exempting it from the ban despite criminal charges. Now the government is changing the policy to exempt SNC-Lavalin even if it gets convicted.If the Prime Minister plans to allow SNC-Lavalin to get contracts even after a conviction, why did he need to intervene to stop the company from going to trial in the first place?
Mr. Speaker, it is always we will, we will, we will.The Prime Minister has known for over a year now that SNC-Lavalin risks losing all government contracts if there is no remediation agreement. His inaction has cost SNC-Lavalin $1.6 billion over the past few months. Funds belonging to the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, the nest egg of Quebeckers, are at stake. His inaction could cost Quebec thousands of jobs and a head office. Why has the Prime Minister turned his back on the workers at SNC-Lavalin?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for MadawaskaRestigouche for his hard work on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Conservative politicians across the country are attacking the French fact in Canada, backed by the Conservative Party leader across the aisle. We will always stand up for minority language communities. I have asked the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie to review and modernize the Official Languages Act. Our goal is to ensure that the act responds to the challenges arising from the transformations that Canada has undergone and to always protect our official language minority communities.
Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, I stood in this House to raise the alarm on the increase in rejections of disability tax credit applications. It is a disturbing fact that there is a 60% increase in rejections. To make matters worse, Liberals have clawed back over $26 million from people with severe and prolonged impairments. They still have not fixed this problem. Liberals are clearly out of touch. What Canadians really want to know is how the Liberals could let this happen.
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the Prime Minister is aware that the former attorney general has written a letter to the justice committee explaining that the order in council that the Prime Minister keeps bragging about falls far short of what is required. She said: [It] does nothing to release me from any restrictions that apply to communications while I served as Minister of Veterans Affairs.... The letter goes on: [and it] leaves in place whatever restraints there are on my ability to speak freely about matters that occurred after I left the post of Attorney General. Why has the Prime Minister kept the restraints on the former attorney general unless he is afraid of what she is going to say?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the former attorney general wrote to the chair of the justice committee to indicate that the Prime Minister's order in council falls short of what is required in terms of sharing all relevant information. The Prime Minister has just a little over an hour. If he truly has nothing to hide, then why will he not simply lift all solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality? What is he afraid of?
Mr. Speaker, in just a moment, I will ask for the unanimous consent of the House, because the National Energy Board has once again failed in its duty regarding official languages. This is such a serious situation that I am sure you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House condemn the actions of the National Energy Board, which tabled its reconsideration report on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project in English only, and call on the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie to use her regulatory powers to ensure that all reports from federal agencies are systematically tabled in both official languages.
Mr. Speaker, when the member opposite qualifies fundamental tenets of our justice system, of our cabinet government, as weasel words, we see the partisan political approach that he is desperate to take. On this side of the House, we respect our institutions, we respect the full integrity of our justice system and that is why we take very carefully and seriously the responsibility to defend those institutions and always will. That is why we took the important step of waiving in this matter the confidentiality.
Mr. Speaker, that is what the Prime Minister would like Canadians to believe, but the facts tell otherwise. He is refusing to let his former attorney general share her entire story. Here is what she had to say yesterday, the Order in Council leaves in place whatever restraints there are on my ability to speak freely about matters that occurred after I left the post of Attorney General.What happened between the time she was removed as attorney general to the day that she resigned that the Prime Minister is so desperate to keep hidden?
Mr. Speaker, former Ontario Liberal attorney general Michael Bryant stated that a crime may have been committed when the Prime Minister conspired to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with bribery. Legal experts, including a former judge, agree that a crime may have been committed and that the RCMP should investigate.I have a simple question requiring a simple answer. Has the Prime Minister, any former or current cabinet minister, or anyone in his office been contacted by the RCMP?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's order in council prevents the former attorney general from discussing her resignation from cabinet, the presentation that she gave to cabinet following her resignation and discussions that she had upon being fired as the Attorney General, all matters relevant to getting to the heart of the truth.Why is the Prime Minister trying to silence his former attorney general? What is he afraid of?
Mr. Speaker, what our government has done every step of the way is stand up and defend workers and jobs in Quebec and across the country, and stand up for the companies and the work that Canadians do across the country.We will always stand up for Canadian jobs, while respecting the independence of our judicial system, our institutions, and the rule of law.That is what we have always done and that is what we will always do.
Mr. Speaker, no, not to our knowledge.
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite obviously misunderstands what the order in council is all about. It is actually about waiving solicitor-client privilege and waiving cabinet confidentiality so that the former attorney general can speak to
Mr. Speaker, no one should be breaking the law to protect jobs.On December 19, the Prime Minister and his cabinet had lunch with the Clerk of the Privy Council. Later in the day, the clerk called the former attorney general to ask her to stop the trial. The Prime Minister, his chief of staff, his principal secretary and the Clerk of the Privy Council are all involved.What lawful authority did the Prime Minister have to instruct the clerk to put pressure on the former attorney general? Canadians want to know.
Mr. Speaker, for 10 years Canadians watched Stephen Harper and his Conservatives disrespect their institutions, play games with the rule of law, and meddle with the independence of the judiciary. They expect a government to stand up and defend our institutions, including one of the fundamental tenets of our justice system, which is solicitor-client privilege, and indeed a fundamental tenet of our government, which is cabinet confidentiality. When we made the decision to waive those elements so that the former attorney general can speak to this matter, that is a big deal.
Check the fine print, Mr. Speaker, because there is an important detail that the Prime Minister is leaving out. Something happened between the time the former attorney general lost her job for speaking truth to power until the day she resigned from cabinet that the Prime Minister is desperate to keep hidden from Canadians. Could the Prime Minister confirm that sometime in that period of time something was said to the former attorney general that proved she lost her job because she stood up to him?
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There seemed to have been some confusion on the Liberal side during question period. The Liberals seem to think that the allegations that were made today come from the Conservative side, but it is, in fact, from the former attorney general herself. I would ask for unanimous consent to table the letter that the former attorney general wrote to the justice committee, which indicates that the Prime Minister's actions fall short of what is required when it comes waiving privilege in this case.
Mr. Speaker, in less than an hour, the former attorney general will be testifying before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Unfortunately, she will not be able to speak her full truth because the Prime Minister will not let her. We are not the ones saying this. It is the former attorney general herself who said it.However, the Prime Minister can reassure Canadians by answering a very simple question here in the House.Did anyone in the PMO or in a minister's office contact SNC-Lavalin representatives to assure them that they would not have to go to trial, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, the former attorney general of Canada will be testifying before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights this afternoon, but that does not mean that we will get the whole story. Any actions or communications involving her that occurred after January 14, the day she was shuffled to Veterans Affairs, are off limits. Allowing her to tell only half the story could leave us with more questions than answers.Why go to so much effort to control what she wants to say?Why not allow her to talk about stepping down from cabinet, for example?Is the Prime Minister's Office that afraid of what she has to say?
Mr. Speaker, throughout the byelection in Burnaby South, people made it clear to Jagmeet Singh that the Liberals only care about the wealthy and the well connected. Everyday Canadians are struggling to put food on the table. They cannot afford the medication that they need. While the Liberals will move heaven and earth to help the corporate elite, everyday Canadians are left behind. All Canadians deserve safe, affordable housing, public universal pharmacare and food on the table. No more delays. No more excuses. Will the Prime Minister put everyday Canadians first for a change, and make real investments in budget 2019 for the people who are most in need?
Mr. Speaker, the former minister of justice has let it be known that she is still being silenced by the Prime Minister regarding the conversations that occurred between her and the Prime Minister's Office prior to her decision to step down as veterans affairs minister.The Bob Fife story broke on February 7. On February 11, the Prime Minister said that her continued presence in cabinet was a sign that everything was hunky-dory. She quit the next day.We know she was under intense pressure in that period. The simple questions are these: Who spoke to her from the PMO? What was said? Why is the Prime Minister refusing to let her tell her whole story?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been refusing to tell the truth since the news about SNC-Lavalin broke.For nearly three weeks now, the message has changed daily. He even refused to let the former attorney general speak while allowing the current Attorney General to speak everyday. It is completely ridiculous.After question period today, the Prime Minister will finally let the member for Vancouver Granville talk about what happened, but only some of what happened.The Prime Minister promised to be different, so why is he not giving her free rein to speak her truth?
Mr. Speaker, we understand that the members opposite want to maximize the political impact of this matter. However, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Ethics Commissioner are looking into a very specific question.We waived solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality to allow the former attorney general to speak fully to the matter in question. That is exactly what Canadians deserve, and that is what we did.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has expressed his admiration for dictators and some might say that he wants to lead Canada in that way.In the SNC-Lavalin case, the former attorney general wanted to enforce the law, but that did not suit the Prime Minister. He, his chief of staff, his principal secretary, and even the Clerk of the Privy Council pressured the former attorney general to halt the trial, which began on October 29.What lawful authority did the Prime Minister have to get his collaborators to talk to the former attorney general's staff on December 18?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is preventing the former attorney general from speaking. She specifically said that he is preventing her from speaking about her time when she was veterans affairs minister, about the conversations they had just before she resigned, specifically in Vancouver, and from what she told cabinet last week. Why is it that the Prime Minister only wants his version of their interactions to be disclosed? What is he hiding?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister still fails to answer the question. He claimed for so long that he needed to allow SNC-Lavalin to avoid conviction so it could continue to have federal contracts. We now know from his own minister's admission that a simple policy change would allow SNC-Lavalin to go on getting contracts and employing people. That cannot be his real motivation.Obviously, the Prime Minister was protecting someone else. If this is not about protecting jobs, who was he protecting?
Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is not unprecedented. Other prime ministers have waived full privilege when it related to investigations during their time in office.For weeks, the Prime Minister was speaking for the former attorney general. Now he is deciding what is relevant. He is deciding what he is going to allow her to speak.This is a very simple question. Why will he not waive privilege for the time period between when she lost her job and when she resigned from cabinet? What is he trying to hide?
Mr. Speaker, we have confidence in the processes under way at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the office of the Ethics Commissioner. That is why we waived the confidentiality requirement that was preventing the former attorney general from speaking fully at committee. We want her to share her perspective on the matter before the committee, and that is exactly what we have allowed her to do.
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister and Minister of Youth, I have the opportunity to spend a lot of time speaking to youth across the country. Despite what the NDP is saying, young people understand that we cannot choose between economic growth and environmental protection. We must do both at the same time.That is exactly what we are doing by putting a price on pollution and investing in safer ways to transport our resources to markets other than the United States. That is what young people expect and that is what we will continue to do.
Mr. Speaker, northerners are taking part in the ice road jigging challenge to raise awareness about ice road communities. Their message is clear: We need roads that work all year to bring supplies to our communities and to travel to doctor appointments. The Liberals do not seem to understand the climate change is making Hatchet Lake first nation inaccessible because the ice roads are open for shorter periods of time. Why does the Liberal government keep neglecting the basic needs of northerners?
Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning, I have always been very clear about what we did.As we have always done, we will continue to stand up for jobs, workers and businesses across the country while respecting and protecting our institutions, the rule of law and the principles of our democracy.That is what we are doing now by waiving solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality so the former attorney general can speak to the matter.
Mr. Speaker, the members opposite have moved entirely off the actual matter in question, which is regarding what happened while she was attorney general and minister of justice. This is something we know Canadians want to hear and that is why we have taken the unprecedented step of waiving cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege to enable the former attorney general to speak to the matter it is studying at committee.
Mr. Speaker, we did what Canadians expect us to, which is to stand up for jobs, defend Canadian workers and defend the economic growth that did not happen under 10 years of Stephen Harper, while at the same time protecting our institutions, standing up for the rule of law and defending the integrity and the independence of our judicial system.That is what this government has always done. That is what we will always do.
Mr. Speaker, the matter in question before the justice committee and before the Ethics Commissioner is focused on her time as Attorney General, and that is why when we went forward to waive confidentiality in regard to solicitor-client privilege, in regard to cabinet confidence, we took very seriously this unprecedented step, because we know that Canadians need to hear all perspectives on this. That is why we are moving forward in a responsible way that respects our institutions.
Mr. Speaker, we have empowered the former attorney general to share all of her experiences and give full testimony regarding the matter before that committee.I understand that the members opposite are using this matter to try to score political points. We on this side are interested in the rigorous process that is under way. That is what we always do, and what we will always do. We respect our institutions, while also standing up to protect the workers and businesses across this country that deserve to be supported, not attacked, as the opposition is doing.
Mr. Speaker, we have done what Canadians expect of us every step of the way. We have stood up for jobs, stood up for workers and invested in our country's economic growth, while at the same time defending our institutions, standing up for the rule of law and defending the independence of our judiciary. That is what we have always done, and that is what we will always do, to protect jobs and to protect our institutions at the exact same time.
Mr. Speaker, the members opposite do not seem to want to talk anymore about the fact that every step of the way we stood up for good jobs across this country, we stood up for Canadian workers and we stood up for the growth of our economy, which we have been delivering on over the past three years, while at the same time defending our institutions, defending the independence of our judiciary and standing up for the rule of law. That is what Canadians expect of this government, of any government, and that is exactly what we are delivering on in every different instance.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that he is pleased that the former attorney general can share her perspective on SNC-Lavalin. Now we know why. He is still dictating what she can and cannot say about this Liberal corruption scandal.If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, why is he still trying to silence the former attorney general?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals were dragged kicking and screaming to the justice committee before they even started to allow people to give testimony. They are still only allowing half the story to be told, the half of the story the Prime Minister is comfortable hearing. There is more to this story. Something happened. Something was said to the former attorney general or someone in the Prime Minister's Office validated her accusations that she lost her job because she would not let his friends off the hook. Is that why the Prime Minister will not waive full privilege in this matter?
Mr. Speaker, if we need to hear all perspectives, then we need to hear her full perspective. Will the Prime Minister do this very simple thing. Will he write a letter right now, he has just over an hour, and tell the former attorney general that she can speak about the time when she was veterans affairs minister, she can talk about their conversations in Vancouver before she resigned and she can talk about what she told cabinet last week. It is very simple. Will he do that right now?
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we will always defend Canadian jobs. We will always defend workers. We will always defend pensioners. We will always stand up for the economic growth that, unfortunately, simply did not happen under 10 years of Conservative government.At the same time, what also did not happen under 10 years of the Conservative government is respect for our institutions, respect for the independence of law, and the kinds of thoughtful processes that actually defend our justice system. That is exactly what we are doing, at the same time: We are protecting jobs while standing up for the rule of law in this country.
Mr. Speaker, last summer the government announced Opportunity for All, Canada's first-ever national poverty reduction strategy. The strategy highlights all the investments the government has made in the fight against poverty. It also sets ambitious targets of reducing poverty by 20% by 2020, and by 50% by 2030.Could the Prime Minister tell the House what progress is being made towards meeting these targets?
Mr. Speaker, hundreds of young people sent an SOS to all politicians during the La planète s'invite à l'école event. They know that their generation will pay the price for global warming.Will the Liberals listen to them and include measures in the budget to end fossil fuel subsidies and massive investments in renewable energy?Given the urgent need to address climate change, young people understand that the time for dithering and half-measures is over. Will the Liberals recognize this and take appropriate action?
Mr. Speaker, we take very seriously the matter before the justice committee and indeed the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That is why, as a government, we were determined to take the unprecedented step of waiving cabinet confidentiality, of waiving solicitor-client privilege, which allows the former attorney general to speak fully to the matter in question. This is something that Canadians expect. They want to be able to hear different perspectives on this matter and that is exactly what they are going to get to hear.
Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite has deep respect for our justice system and for the fundamentals of that justice system and knows full well that solicitor-client privilege is one of the foundational tenets of our justice system and that cabinet confidentiality is one of the fundamental necessary tenets of the functioning of our democratic system. That is why, when we take the step to waive cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege in this matter, he must recognize it as a significant step toward
Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of the SNC-Lavalin saga, the Prime Minister sent mixed messages to Canadians. First, he refused to allow the former attorney general to speak at all. Then he gave in but only a little bit. This week, she wrote the justice committee and said that she will not be able to tell us anything as to what happened after January 14.Are these the actions of a Prime Minister who says that sunlight is the best disinfectant? Enough is enough. Will the Prime Minister let the former attorney general tell her story, speak her truth and tell Canadians exactly what happened?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not answering the question. Will the Prime Minister, right now, give permission to the former attorney general to speak freely about her time as veterans affairs minister, about the meetings she had with the Prime Minister in Vancouver and her presentation to cabinet last week, and if not, why not?
Mr. Speaker, first nations leaders from Manitoba came to Ottawa this week to once again call on the government to respect their rights and move on treaty land entitlement. For two months they asked to meet with the new minister, but he could not be bothered. When he was appointed, he said he had a lot to learn, yet he could not bother to walk two blocks to meet with leaders who want to help him understand his historic obligation. Learning? This is failing the test.Will the Prime Minister direct his minister to do his homework, and will the government stop disrespecting first nations' rights to land?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had no trouble talking about that period of time after he had fired her as Attorney General and until she resigned. The Clerk of the Privy Council had no trouble talking about that period of time after the former attorney general was moved along and then resigned.Why is the Prime Minister preventing the person who was fired and who resigned from sharing her full truth? Why is he placing restraints on her? Why will he not do the right thing and lift them right now?
Mr. Speaker, we have made historic investments in infrastructure, including in partnership with indigenous communities right across the country. I personally had the pleasure and honour to spend some time with the community in Hatchet Lake one winter a few years ago and got to see directly the challenges they are facing. That is why this government is committed to reconciliation, to investment, to partnership with indigenous communities right across this country to make sure we are building a better future together for everyone in this country.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in her letter to the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the former attorney general of Canada said that she would not be able to speak freely about the interference by the Prime Minister and his cronies. If we understand correctly, everyone who has appeared before the committee has been able to tell everything they knew, except the former attorney general. She will be the only witness who cannot speak freely.Could the Prime Minister just tell us why he is trying to muzzle her instead of freeing her to tell Canadians everything she knows?
Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister respects the committee, let it do its job. Let it hear from the former attorney general. We are asking the Prime Minister, and Canadians deserve the truth. They deserve an answer from the Prime Minister right now. Will the Prime Minister waive the privilege? Will he waive the cabinet confidentiality and let the former attorney general speak freely about her time as veterans affair minister and speak freely about their meeting in Vancouver? Will the Prime Minister waive the privilege?
Mr. Speaker, the question that is before the justice committee and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner is entirely focused on her time as Attorney General. We know that the system of cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege is a fundamental tenet, extraordinarily important both to our democracy and to our system of justice. That is why we took the unprecedented step of waiving those elements so that Canadians could hear directly from the former attorney general on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, the issue that is before the justice committee and before the Ethics Commissioner is one that Canadians want to see answers to and want to hear diverse perspectives on. That is why we waived cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege to enable the former attorney general to speak fully to the matter under study.That is what Canadians expect and that is exactly what we have delivered. The principle of confidentiality, at cabinet and in solicitor-client privilege, is an important one.
Mr. Speaker, diverse perspectives, yes, there is truth and non-truth. I remember in Sunday school they said that what is whispered in the backrooms is going to get shouted from the rooftops. This is the Prime Minister's opportunity to come clean. Stop hiding behind those legal-weasel mechanisms that are preventing the former minister from telling the whole truth. Will he waive the cabinet confidence on what was said to the member of Vancouver Granville in the lead-up to her resignation? Better yet, will the Prime Minister agree to testify about his interference in this case and come clean on this whole tawdry affair? Will he testify?
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois and all Quebeckers know very well that our government takes very seriously its responsibility to protect good jobs, promote economic growth and stand up for workers.That is exactly what we are doing, but we will always do so in accordance with the laws and rules in place, while respecting our institutions and respecting the independence of our justice system. That is what all Canadians expect.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for MississaugaLakeshore for his hard work and thoughtful questions. We are constantly listening to the concerns of Canadians. We are taking action to increase competition, because that is the best way to bring down the costs of services like Internet and cellphone plans.Yesterday, we proposed clear direction to the CRTC to build on our work to date. Telecommunications policy decisions must put consumers first. We need to ensure that Canadians can get the access they need at prices they can afford, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Mr. Speaker, the matter before the committee and the Ethics Commissioner is very specific. That is why we have enabled the former attorney general to speak fully to the matter currently under study by the committee. This is a significant step that we took. The decision to waive solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality is not one to be taken lightly. In this case, and for this important study, I think it was the right thing to do.
Mr. Speaker, we have always stood up for good jobs across the country, stood up for employers, and stood up for the workers who work so hard every day to build a better Canada and help their families, and we always will.That is exactly what we will always do, and, at the same time, we will ensure that we always comply with the law, protect the integrity of our justice system and defend our institutions. That is what Canadians expect, especially after 10 years under a Conservative government that did not do any of those things well.
Mr. Speaker, it is troubling to see that the Conservatives have chosen to play politics by going after SNC-Lavalin workers and workers across the country.Quebeckers and Canadians know very well that we will always defend jobs on this side of the House. We will always defend workers, but we will also respect the rule of law and our institutions, including the independence of our justice system. The Conservatives' attacks will not change this.
Mr. Speaker, the best way to protect our institutions is to let everyone state the facts clearly. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister denied the former attorney general of Canada that freedom to speak. She herself acknowledged that she will not be able to speak her full truth.I will ask my very simple question again. Did anyone in the PMO or in a minister's office contact SNC-Lavalin representatives to assure them there would be no criminal trial, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, the opposition seems to be shifting in its approach, because the justice committee and indeed the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner are very much focused on a very specific question that they are looking into.We have waived privilege and we have waived cabinet confidentiality so that the former attorney general can speak fully and expansively to the matter under study. That is what Canadians expect. That is exactly what we are doing, because we understand how important it is to make sure that Canadians hear a diverse range of perspectives.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that he needed to protect SNC-Lavalin from conviction, because they would not be able to bid on federal work and the business would go under.However, yesterday, his public services minister confirmed that a simple policy change would have allowed the company, even after conviction, to bid on those federal contracts and continue to operate.Given that revelation, and given that he was not doing this to protect workers, who was the Prime Minister trying to protect?
Mr. Speaker, it is important for Canadians to hear different perspectives on this matter.We announced that, where appropriate, we are waiving solicitor-client privilege, cabinet confidentiality and all other obligations of confidentiality with respect to the matters being studied by the justice committee and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. We want the committee to continue its important work. We support the work of this committee and, of course, the work of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.
Mr. Speaker, this is the government that moved forward on the historic accessible Canada act for the first time, moved forward with a comprehensive approach to removing barriers for all Canadians. We recognize that a country like Canada needs to make sure that every single Canadian has a full opportunity to participate and has the support and benefits they need in order to succeed and contribute to our country. That is exactly what we have done with this historic legislation. There is still much more work to do, and we will do it, but we will do it together.
Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, the member opposite was part of a government that did not do a good job of protecting jobs or of creating growth for Canadians. Indeed, it had the lowest growth rate of any prime minister since R. B. Bennett in the depths of the Great Depression.At the same time, in those 10 years, we saw countless examples of that government's torquing the truth in favour of partisan interests and disrespecting the judiciary, including Supreme Court judges.We will consistently stand up to create jobs, to protect jobs and to protect our institutions at the exact same time.
Mr. Speaker, we on the opposition side are not making this up. It is the former attorney general herself, who remains a Liberal member sitting on that side of the House, who clearly said that she does not have free rein to speak before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. She will not be able to speak about what happened when she was veterans affairs minister. She will not be able to speak about what happened during the meetings in Vancouver before she resigned. She will not be able to speak about what happened during last week's cabinet meeting and Liberal caucus meeting after she resigned. She will not be able to speak her truth, because the Prime Minister does not want to give her
Mr. Speaker, I am extraordinarily proud of the work that the Minister of Indigenous Services is doing every single day to build a better future for indigenous peoples.In regard to northern Manitoba, it was this government that moved forward to restore rail service to Churchill. We did that in a way that partnered with indigenous communities along the way and that gave them ownership over the railroad to make sure they are integral and empowered in the future of northern Manitoba and, indeed, of northern Canada.
Mr. Speaker, defending our institutions, defending the rule of law and defending the independence and rigour of our justice system is something that we take very, very seriously. The decision to waive solicitor-client privilege and, indeed, cabinet confidentiality is not one to be taken lightly, but it is one that we took in this case because it is important that the justice committee and that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner are able to do their work. That is why we took that unprecedented step.
Mr. Speaker, unlike the Harper Conservatives, we take very seriously the institutions, the processes and the procedures that are fundamental to our system of justice, to the rule of law and to our very institutions. That is why we take great care when we take an unprecedented step like waiving solicitor-client privilege in this matter, like waiving cabinet confidentiality in this matter. I think it is important that Canadians get a chance to hear from a broad range of perspectives and that is exactly what they will be able to do.
Mr. Speaker, we respect the responsibility of the justice committee and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to get to the bottom of this matter and to have a full airing of this. That is why we have taken the unprecedented step of waiving cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege in regard to the matter that is under study by that committee.The members opposite do not seem to be pleased with that, because they are playing political games with it. What we are doing is allowing for a full airing of this matter at committee.
Mr. Speaker, this is what SNC-Lavalin's intervention looked like: 30 thousand dollars' worth of Canadian prostitutes given to Moammar Gadhafi's son. This is the so-called victimless crime that our woke feminist Prime Minister is moving mountains to cover up.When did the Prime Minister learn that SNC-Lavalin paid for prostitutes for Moammar Gadhafi's son?
Mr. Speaker, the problem is that she will not be able to say anything about what happened after January 14. For example, she will likely not be able to explain why, after she was shuffled, she wrote that it is a pillar of our democracy that our system of justice be free from all political interference.She will not be able to explain why she resigned from cabinet and, most importantly, she will not be able to tell us what she said during her unprecedented appearance before cabinet following her resignation, which could shed a lot of light on the situation.If the Prime Minister can give five different versions of the story, why will he not lift all of the constraints preventing the former minister of justice from telling her version?
Mr. Speaker, we know Canadians need access to telecommunications services to participate fully and to succeed in a digital economy. Canadians have expressed concerns about the quality, coverage and, most significantly, the cost of these essential services, and they are looking for lower-cost options and innovative services. Can the Prime Minister please update the House on our government's work to ensure that Canadians have access to quality services at more affordable prices?
Mr. Speaker, we set a goal of achieving the lowest poverty level in Canada's history. Yesterday the Canadian income survey showed that we hit our first target three years ahead of schedule.In the first two years of our mandate, our investments helped lift over 820,000 people out of poverty, which includes 278,000 children. Thanks to programs like the Canada child benefit, which was of course opposed by the Conservatives, we are giving every Canadian a real and fair chance at success.
Mr. Speaker, every step of the way, we will stand up for Canadian workers. We will stand up for good jobs right across this country. We will do so in a way that is consistent with our values, with our expectations and with the rule of law. That is the matter we will stay focused on in this. We will defend Canadian jobs, and we will ensure that we are being consistent, both with our values and with the rules and laws in place.
Mr. Speaker, the principle of solicitor-client privilege and the principle of cabinet confidentiality are fundamental tenets of our justice system and, indeed, of our system of government. We do not and will never take those principles lightly.
Mr. Speaker, the NDP never lets the facts get in the way of a good rhetorical question.On this side of the House, we set a goal of achieving the lowest poverty level in Canada's history, and yesterday the Canadian income survey showed that we hit our first target three years ahead of schedule. In the first two years of our mandate, our investments helped to lift 820,000 people out of poverty, including almost 300,000 children. That is what we are doing to help people in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Official Languages and I are extremely proud to be starting our study on the modernization of the Official Languages Act, which is turning 50 this year. This act has helped Canadians make great strides in linguistic development and identity building over the years. That is why the committee has launched this study. Canada's official languages are a source of national pride and an integral part of our identity. Could the Prime Minister tell us how the government will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Official Languages Act?
Mr. Speaker, we took the unprecedented step of waiving both cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege in the matter currently under study by the justice committee and the Ethics Commissioner. This is a significant step that we took. We know that Canadians need to hear different perspectives on this matter. That is why we welcome the work the committee is doing and we welcome the work the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is doing on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister conspired to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with bribery, and this is what the bribery looked like
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that if he had allowed SNC-Lavalin to face criminal conviction, the company would be banned from getting federal contracts and would go out of business.However, in December 2015 the government gave SNC-Lavalin a deal exempting it from the ban despite criminal charges. Now the government is changing the policy to exempt SNC-Lavalin even if it gets convicted.If the Prime Minister plans to allow SNC-Lavalin to get contracts even after a conviction, why did he need to intervene to stop the company from going to trial in the first place?
Mr. Speaker, it is always we will, we will, we will.The Prime Minister has known for over a year now that SNC-Lavalin risks losing all government contracts if there is no remediation agreement. His inaction has cost SNC-Lavalin $1.6 billion over the past few months. Funds belonging to the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, the nest egg of Quebeckers, are at stake. His inaction could cost Quebec thousands of jobs and a head office. Why has the Prime Minister turned his back on the workers at SNC-Lavalin?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for MadawaskaRestigouche for his hard work on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Conservative politicians across the country are attacking the French fact in Canada, backed by the Conservative Party leader across the aisle. We will always stand up for minority language communities. I have asked the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie to review and modernize the Official Languages Act. Our goal is to ensure that the act responds to the challenges arising from the transformations that Canada has undergone and to always protect our official language minority communities.
Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, I stood in this House to raise the alarm on the increase in rejections of disability tax credit applications. It is a disturbing fact that there is a 60% increase in rejections. To make matters worse, Liberals have clawed back over $26 million from people with severe and prolonged impairments. They still have not fixed this problem. Liberals are clearly out of touch. What Canadians really want to know is how the Liberals could let this happen.
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the Prime Minister is aware that the former attorney general has written a letter to the justice committee explaining that the order in council that the Prime Minister keeps bragging about falls far short of what is required. She said: [It] does nothing to release me from any restrictions that apply to communications while I served as Minister of Veterans Affairs.... The letter goes on: [and it] leaves in place whatever restraints there are on my ability to speak freely about matters that occurred after I left the post of Attorney General. Why has the Prime Minister kept the restraints on the former attorney general unless he is afraid of what she is going to say?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the former attorney general wrote to the chair of the justice committee to indicate that the Prime Minister's order in council falls short of what is required in terms of sharing all relevant information. The Prime Minister has just a little over an hour. If he truly has nothing to hide, then why will he not simply lift all solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality? What is he afraid of?
Mr. Speaker, in just a moment, I will ask for the unanimous consent of the House, because the National Energy Board has once again failed in its duty regarding official languages. This is such a serious situation that I am sure you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House condemn the actions of the National Energy Board, which tabled its reconsideration report on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project in English only, and call on the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie to use her regulatory powers to ensure that all reports from federal agencies are systematically tabled in both official languages.
Mr. Speaker, when the member opposite qualifies fundamental tenets of our justice system, of our cabinet government, as weasel words, we see the partisan political approach that he is desperate to take. On this side of the House, we respect our institutions, we respect the full integrity of our justice system and that is why we take very carefully and seriously the responsibility to defend those institutions and always will. That is why we took the important step of waiving in this matter the confidentiality.
Mr. Speaker, that is what the Prime Minister would like Canadians to believe, but the facts tell otherwise. He is refusing to let his former attorney general share her entire story. Here is what she had to say yesterday, the Order in Council leaves in place whatever restraints there are on my ability to speak freely about matters that occurred after I left the post of Attorney General.What happened between the time she was removed as attorney general to the day that she resigned that the Prime Minister is so desperate to keep hidden?
Mr. Speaker, former Ontario Liberal attorney general Michael Bryant stated that a crime may have been committed when the Prime Minister conspired to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with bribery. Legal experts, including a former judge, agree that a crime may have been committed and that the RCMP should investigate.I have a simple question requiring a simple answer. Has the Prime Minister, any former or current cabinet minister, or anyone in his office been contacted by the RCMP?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's order in council prevents the former attorney general from discussing her resignation from cabinet, the presentation that she gave to cabinet following her resignation and discussions that she had upon being fired as the Attorney General, all matters relevant to getting to the heart of the truth.Why is the Prime Minister trying to silence his former attorney general? What is he afraid of?
Mr. Speaker, what our government has done every step of the way is stand up and defend workers and jobs in Quebec and across the country, and stand up for the companies and the work that Canadians do across the country.We will always stand up for Canadian jobs, while respecting the independence of our judicial system, our institutions, and the rule of law.That is what we have always done and that is what we will always do.
Mr. Speaker, no, not to our knowledge.
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite obviously misunderstands what the order in council is all about. It is actually about waiving solicitor-client privilege and waiving cabinet confidentiality so that the former attorney general can speak to
Mr. Speaker, no one should be breaking the law to protect jobs.On December 19, the Prime Minister and his cabinet had lunch with the Clerk of the Privy Council. Later in the day, the clerk called the former attorney general to ask her to stop the trial. The Prime Minister, his chief of staff, his principal secretary and the Clerk of the Privy Council are all involved.What lawful authority did the Prime Minister have to instruct the clerk to put pressure on the former attorney general? Canadians want to know.
Mr. Speaker, for 10 years Canadians watched Stephen Harper and his Conservatives disrespect their institutions, play games with the rule of law, and meddle with the independence of the judiciary. They expect a government to stand up and defend our institutions, including one of the fundamental tenets of our justice system, which is solicitor-client privilege, and indeed a fundamental tenet of our government, which is cabinet confidentiality. When we made the decision to waive those elements so that the former attorney general can speak to this matter, that is a big deal.
Check the fine print, Mr. Speaker, because there is an important detail that the Prime Minister is leaving out. Something happened between the time the former attorney general lost her job for speaking truth to power until the day she resigned from cabinet that the Prime Minister is desperate to keep hidden from Canadians. Could the Prime Minister confirm that sometime in that period of time something was said to the former attorney general that proved she lost her job because she stood up to him?
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There seemed to have been some confusion on the Liberal side during question period. The Liberals seem to think that the allegations that were made today come from the Conservative side, but it is, in fact, from the former attorney general herself. I would ask for unanimous consent to table the letter that the former attorney general wrote to the justice committee, which indicates that the Prime Minister's actions fall short of what is required when it comes waiving privilege in this case.
Mr. Speaker, in less than an hour, the former attorney general will be testifying before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Unfortunately, she will not be able to speak her full truth because the Prime Minister will not let her. We are not the ones saying this. It is the former attorney general herself who said it.However, the Prime Minister can reassure Canadians by answering a very simple question here in the House.Did anyone in the PMO or in a minister's office contact SNC-Lavalin representatives to assure them that they would not have to go to trial, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, the former attorney general of Canada will be testifying before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights this afternoon, but that does not mean that we will get the whole story. Any actions or communications involving her that occurred after January 14, the day she was shuffled to Veterans Affairs, are off limits. Allowing her to tell only half the story could leave us with more questions than answers.Why go to so much effort to control what she wants to say?Why not allow her to talk about stepping down from cabinet, for example?Is the Prime Minister's Office that afraid of what she has to say?
Mr. Speaker, throughout the byelection in Burnaby South, people made it clear to Jagmeet Singh that the Liberals only care about the wealthy and the well connected. Everyday Canadians are struggling to put food on the table. They cannot afford the medication that they need. While the Liberals will move heaven and earth to help the corporate elite, everyday Canadians are left behind. All Canadians deserve safe, affordable housing, public universal pharmacare and food on the table. No more delays. No more excuses. Will the Prime Minister put everyday Canadians first for a change, and make real investments in budget 2019 for the people who are most in need?
Mr. Speaker, the former minister of justice has let it be known that she is still being silenced by the Prime Minister regarding the conversations that occurred between her and the Prime Minister's Office prior to her decision to step down as veterans affairs minister.The Bob Fife story broke on February 7. On February 11, the Prime Minister said that her continued presence in cabinet was a sign that everything was hunky-dory. She quit the next day.We know she was under intense pressure in that period. The simple questions are these: Who spoke to her from the PMO? What was said? Why is the Prime Minister refusing to let her tell her whole story?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been refusing to tell the truth since the news about SNC-Lavalin broke.For nearly three weeks now, the message has changed daily. He even refused to let the former attorney general speak while allowing the current Attorney General to speak everyday. It is completely ridiculous.After question period today, the Prime Minister will finally let the member for Vancouver Granville talk about what happened, but only some of what happened.The Prime Minister promised to be different, so why is he not giving her free rein to speak her truth?
Mr. Speaker, we understand that the members opposite want to maximize the political impact of this matter. However, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Ethics Commissioner are looking into a very specific question.We waived solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality to allow the former attorney general to speak fully to the matter in question. That is exactly what Canadians deserve, and that is what we did.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has expressed his admiration for dictators and some might say that he wants to lead Canada in that way.In the SNC-Lavalin case, the former attorney general wanted to enforce the law, but that did not suit the Prime Minister. He, his chief of staff, his principal secretary, and even the Clerk of the Privy Council pressured the former attorney general to halt the trial, which began on October 29.What lawful authority did the Prime Minister have to get his collaborators to talk to the former attorney general's staff on December 18?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is preventing the former attorney general from speaking. She specifically said that he is preventing her from speaking about her time when she was veterans affairs minister, about the conversations they had just before she resigned, specifically in Vancouver, and from what she told cabinet last week. Why is it that the Prime Minister only wants his version of their interactions to be disclosed? What is he hiding?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister still fails to answer the question. He claimed for so long that he needed to allow SNC-Lavalin to avoid conviction so it could continue to have federal contracts. We now know from his own minister's admission that a simple policy change would allow SNC-Lavalin to go on getting contracts and employing people. That cannot be his real motivation.Obviously, the Prime Minister was protecting someone else. If this is not about protecting jobs, who was he protecting?
Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is not unprecedented. Other prime ministers have waived full privilege when it related to investigations during their time in office.For weeks, the Prime Minister was speaking for the former attorney general. Now he is deciding what is relevant. He is deciding what he is going to allow her to speak.This is a very simple question. Why will he not waive privilege for the time period between when she lost her job and when she resigned from cabinet? What is he trying to hide?
Mr. Speaker, we have confidence in the processes under way at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the office of the Ethics Commissioner. That is why we waived the confidentiality requirement that was preventing the former attorney general from speaking fully at committee. We want her to share her perspective on the matter before the committee, and that is exactly what we have allowed her to do.
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister and Minister of Youth, I have the opportunity to spend a lot of time speaking to youth across the country. Despite what the NDP is saying, young people understand that we cannot choose between economic growth and environmental protection. We must do both at the same time.That is exactly what we are doing by putting a price on pollution and investing in safer ways to transport our resources to markets other than the United States. That is what young people expect and that is what we will continue to do.
Mr. Speaker, northerners are taking part in the ice road jigging challenge to raise awareness about ice road communities. Their message is clear: We need roads that work all year to bring supplies to our communities and to travel to doctor appointments. The Liberals do not seem to understand the climate change is making Hatchet Lake first nation inaccessible because the ice roads are open for shorter periods of time. Why does the Liberal government keep neglecting the basic needs of northerners?
Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning, I have always been very clear about what we did.As we have always done, we will continue to stand up for jobs, workers and businesses across the country while respecting and protecting our institutions, the rule of law and the principles of our democracy.That is what we are doing now by waiving solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality so the former attorney general can speak to the matter.
Mr. Speaker, the members opposite have moved entirely off the actual matter in question, which is regarding what happened while she was attorney general and minister of justice. This is something we know Canadians want to hear and that is why we have taken the unprecedented step of waiving cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege to enable the former attorney general to speak to the matter it is studying at committee.
Mr. Speaker, we did what Canadians expect us to, which is to stand up for jobs, defend Canadian workers and defend the economic growth that did not happen under 10 years of Stephen Harper, while at the same time protecting our institutions, standing up for the rule of law and defending the integrity and the independence of our judicial system.That is what this government has always done. That is what we will always do.
Mr. Speaker, the matter in question before the justice committee and before the Ethics Commissioner is focused on her time as Attorney General, and that is why when we went forward to waive confidentiality in regard to solicitor-client privilege, in regard to cabinet confidence, we took very seriously this unprecedented step, because we know that Canadians need to hear all perspectives on this. That is why we are moving forward in a responsible way that respects our institutions.
Mr. Speaker, we have empowered the former attorney general to share all of her experiences and give full testimony regarding the matter before that committee.I understand that the members opposite are using this matter to try to score political points. We on this side are interested in the rigorous process that is under way. That is what we always do, and what we will always do. We respect our institutions, while also standing up to protect the workers and businesses across this country that deserve to be supported, not attacked, as the opposition is doing.
Mr. Speaker, we have done what Canadians expect of us every step of the way. We have stood up for jobs, stood up for workers and invested in our country's economic growth, while at the same time defending our institutions, standing up for the rule of law and defending the independence of our judiciary. That is what we have always done, and that is what we will always do, to protect jobs and to protect our institutions at the exact same time.
Mr. Speaker, the members opposite do not seem to want to talk anymore about the fact that every step of the way we stood up for good jobs across this country, we stood up for Canadian workers and we stood up for the growth of our economy, which we have been delivering on over the past three years, while at the same time defending our institutions, defending the independence of our judiciary and standing up for the rule of law. That is what Canadians expect of this government, of any government, and that is exactly what we are delivering on in every different instance.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that he is pleased that the former attorney general can share her perspective on SNC-Lavalin. Now we know why. He is still dictating what she can and cannot say about this Liberal corruption scandal.If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, why is he still trying to silence the former attorney general?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals were dragged kicking and screaming to the justice committee before they even started to allow people to give testimony. They are still only allowing half the story to be told, the half of the story the Prime Minister is comfortable hearing. There is more to this story. Something happened. Something was said to the former attorney general or someone in the Prime Minister's Office validated her accusations that she lost her job because she would not let his friends off the hook. Is that why the Prime Minister will not waive full privilege in this matter?
Mr. Speaker, if we need to hear all perspectives, then we need to hear her full perspective. Will the Prime Minister do this very simple thing. Will he write a letter right now, he has just over an hour, and tell the former attorney general that she can speak about the time when she was veterans affairs minister, she can talk about their conversations in Vancouver before she resigned and she can talk about what she told cabinet last week. It is very simple. Will he do that right now?
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we will always defend Canadian jobs. We will always defend workers. We will always defend pensioners. We will always stand up for the economic growth that, unfortunately, simply did not happen under 10 years of Conservative government.At the same time, what also did not happen under 10 years of the Conservative government is respect for our institutions, respect for the independence of law, and the kinds of thoughtful processes that actually defend our justice system. That is exactly what we are doing, at the same time: We are protecting jobs while standing up for the rule of law in this country.
Mr. Speaker, last summer the government announced Opportunity for All, Canada's first-ever national poverty reduction strategy. The strategy highlights all the investments the government has made in the fight against poverty. It also sets ambitious targets of reducing poverty by 20% by 2020, and by 50% by 2030.Could the Prime Minister tell the House what progress is being made towards meeting these targets?
Mr. Speaker, hundreds of young people sent an SOS to all politicians during the La planète s'invite à l'école event. They know that their generation will pay the price for global warming.Will the Liberals listen to them and include measures in the budget to end fossil fuel subsidies and massive investments in renewable energy?Given the urgent need to address climate change, young people understand that the time for dithering and half-measures is over. Will the Liberals recognize this and take appropriate action?
Mr. Speaker, we take very seriously the matter before the justice committee and indeed the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That is why, as a government, we were determined to take the unprecedented step of waiving cabinet confidentiality, of waiving solicitor-client privilege, which allows the former attorney general to speak fully to the matter in question. This is something that Canadians expect. They want to be able to hear different perspectives on this matter and that is exactly what they are going to get to hear.
Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite has deep respect for our justice system and for the fundamentals of that justice system and knows full well that solicitor-client privilege is one of the foundational tenets of our justice system and that cabinet confidentiality is one of the fundamental necessary tenets of the functioning of our democratic system. That is why, when we take the step to waive cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege in this matter, he must recognize it as a significant step toward
Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of the SNC-Lavalin saga, the Prime Minister sent mixed messages to Canadians. First, he refused to allow the former attorney general to speak at all. Then he gave in but only a little bit. This week, she wrote the justice committee and said that she will not be able to tell us anything as to what happened after January 14.Are these the actions of a Prime Minister who says that sunlight is the best disinfectant? Enough is enough. Will the Prime Minister let the former attorney general tell her story, speak her truth and tell Canadians exactly what happened?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not answering the question. Will the Prime Minister, right now, give permission to the former attorney general to speak freely about her time as veterans affairs minister, about the meetings she had with the Prime Minister in Vancouver and her presentation to cabinet last week, and if not, why not?
Mr. Speaker, first nations leaders from Manitoba came to Ottawa this week to once again call on the government to respect their rights and move on treaty land entitlement. For two months they asked to meet with the new minister, but he could not be bothered. When he was appointed, he said he had a lot to learn, yet he could not bother to walk two blocks to meet with leaders who want to help him understand his historic obligation. Learning? This is failing the test.Will the Prime Minister direct his minister to do his homework, and will the government stop disrespecting first nations' rights to land?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had no trouble talking about that period of time after he had fired her as Attorney General and until she resigned. The Clerk of the Privy Council had no trouble talking about that period of time after the former attorney general was moved along and then resigned.Why is the Prime Minister preventing the person who was fired and who resigned from sharing her full truth? Why is he placing restraints on her? Why will he not do the right thing and lift them right now?
Mr. Speaker, we have made historic investments in infrastructure, including in partnership with indigenous communities right across the country. I personally had the pleasure and honour to spend some time with the community in Hatchet Lake one winter a few years ago and got to see directly the challenges they are facing. That is why this government is committed to reconciliation, to investment, to partnership with indigenous communities right across this country to make sure we are building a better future together for everyone in this country.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in her letter to the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the former attorney general of Canada said that she would not be able to speak freely about the interference by the Prime Minister and his cronies. If we understand correctly, everyone who has appeared before the committee has been able to tell everything they knew, except the former attorney general. She will be the only witness who cannot speak freely.Could the Prime Minister just tell us why he is trying to muzzle her instead of freeing her to tell Canadians everything she knows?
Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister respects the committee, let it do its job. Let it hear from the former attorney general. We are asking the Prime Minister, and Canadians deserve the truth. They deserve an answer from the Prime Minister right now. Will the Prime Minister waive the privilege? Will he waive the cabinet confidentiality and let the former attorney general speak freely about her time as veterans affair minister and speak freely about their meeting in Vancouver? Will the Prime Minister waive the privilege?
Mr. Speaker, the question that is before the justice committee and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner is entirely focused on her time as Attorney General. We know that the system of cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege is a fundamental tenet, extraordinarily important both to our democracy and to our system of justice. That is why we took the unprecedented step of waiving those elements so that Canadians could hear directly from the former attorney general on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, the issue that is before the justice committee and before the Ethics Commissioner is one that Canadians want to see answers to and want to hear diverse perspectives on. That is why we waived cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege to enable the former attorney general to speak fully to the matter under study.That is what Canadians expect and that is exactly what we have delivered. The principle of confidentiality, at cabinet and in solicitor-client privilege, is an important one.
Mr. Speaker, diverse perspectives, yes, there is truth and non-truth. I remember in Sunday school they said that what is whispered in the backrooms is going to get shouted from the rooftops. This is the Prime Minister's opportunity to come clean. Stop hiding behind those legal-weasel mechanisms that are preventing the former minister from telling the whole truth. Will he waive the cabinet confidence on what was said to the member of Vancouver Granville in the lead-up to her resignation? Better yet, will the Prime Minister agree to testify about his interference in this case and come clean on this whole tawdry affair? Will he testify?
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois and all Quebeckers know very well that our government takes very seriously its responsibility to protect good jobs, promote economic growth and stand up for workers.That is exactly what we are doing, but we will always do so in accordance with the laws and rules in place, while respecting our institutions and respecting the independence of our justice system. That is what all Canadians expect.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for MississaugaLakeshore for his hard work and thoughtful questions. We are constantly listening to the concerns of Canadians. We are taking action to increase competition, because that is the best way to bring down the costs of services like Internet and cellphone plans.Yesterday, we proposed clear direction to the CRTC to build on our work to date. Telecommunications policy decisions must put consumers first. We need to ensure that Canadians can get the access they need at prices they can afford, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Mr. Speaker, the matter before the committee and the Ethics Commissioner is very specific. That is why we have enabled the former attorney general to speak fully to the matter currently under study by the committee. This is a significant step that we took. The decision to waive solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality is not one to be taken lightly. In this case, and for this important study, I think it was the right thing to do.
Mr. Speaker, we have always stood up for good jobs across the country, stood up for employers, and stood up for the workers who work so hard every day to build a better Canada and help their families, and we always will.That is exactly what we will always do, and, at the same time, we will ensure that we always comply with the law, protect the integrity of our justice system and defend our institutions. That is what Canadians expect, especially after 10 years under a Conservative government that did not do any of those things well.
Mr. Speaker, it is troubling to see that the Conservatives have chosen to play politics by going after SNC-Lavalin workers and workers across the country.Quebeckers and Canadians know very well that we will always defend jobs on this side of the House. We will always defend workers, but we will also respect the rule of law and our institutions, including the independence of our justice system. The Conservatives' attacks will not change this.
Mr. Speaker, the best way to protect our institutions is to let everyone state the facts clearly. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister denied the former attorney general of Canada that freedom to speak. She herself acknowledged that she will not be able to speak her full truth.I will ask my very simple question again. Did anyone in the PMO or in a minister's office contact SNC-Lavalin representatives to assure them there would be no criminal trial, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, the opposition seems to be shifting in its approach, because the justice committee and indeed the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner are very much focused on a very specific question that they are looking into.We have waived privilege and we have waived cabinet confidentiality so that the former attorney general can speak fully and expansively to the matter under study. That is what Canadians expect. That is exactly what we are doing, because we understand how important it is to make sure that Canadians hear a diverse range of perspectives.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that he needed to protect SNC-Lavalin from conviction, because they would not be able to bid on federal work and the business would go under.However, yesterday, his public services minister confirmed that a simple policy change would have allowed the company, even after conviction, to bid on those federal contracts and continue to operate.Given that revelation, and given that he was not doing this to protect workers, who was the Prime Minister trying to protect?
Mr. Speaker, it is important for Canadians to hear different perspectives on this matter.We announced that, where appropriate, we are waiving solicitor-client privilege, cabinet confidentiality and all other obligations of confidentiality with respect to the matters being studied by the justice committee and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. We want the committee to continue its important work. We support the work of this committee and, of course, the work of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.
Mr. Speaker, this is the government that moved forward on the historic accessible Canada act for the first time, moved forward with a comprehensive approach to removing barriers for all Canadians. We recognize that a country like Canada needs to make sure that every single Canadian has a full opportunity to participate and has the support and benefits they need in order to succeed and contribute to our country. That is exactly what we have done with this historic legislation. There is still much more work to do, and we will do it, but we will do it together.
Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, the member opposite was part of a government that did not do a good job of protecting jobs or of creating growth for Canadians. Indeed, it had the lowest growth rate of any prime minister since R. B. Bennett in the depths of the Great Depression.At the same time, in those 10 years, we saw countless examples of that government's torquing the truth in favour of partisan interests and disrespecting the judiciary, including Supreme Court judges.We will consistently stand up to create jobs, to protect jobs and to protect our institutions at the exact same time.
Mr. Speaker, we on the opposition side are not making this up. It is the former attorney general herself, who remains a Liberal member sitting on that side of the House, who clearly said that she does not have free rein to speak before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. She will not be able to speak about what happened when she was veterans affairs minister. She will not be able to speak about what happened during the meetings in Vancouver before she resigned. She will not be able to speak about what happened during last week's cabinet meeting and Liberal caucus meeting after she resigned. She will not be able to speak her truth, because the Prime Minister does not want to give her
Mr. Speaker, I am extraordinarily proud of the work that the Minister of Indigenous Services is doing every single day to build a better future for indigenous peoples.In regard to northern Manitoba, it was this government that moved forward to restore rail service to Churchill. We did that in a way that partnered with indigenous communities along the way and that gave them ownership over the railroad to make sure they are integral and empowered in the future of northern Manitoba and, indeed, of northern Canada.
Mr. Speaker, defending our institutions, defending the rule of law and defending the independence and rigour of our justice system is something that we take very, very seriously. The decision to waive solicitor-client privilege and, indeed, cabinet confidentiality is not one to be taken lightly, but it is one that we took in this case because it is important that the justice committee and that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner are able to do their work. That is why we took that unprecedented step.
Mr. Speaker, unlike the Harper Conservatives, we take very seriously the institutions, the processes and the procedures that are fundamental to our system of justice, to the rule of law and to our very institutions. That is why we take great care when we take an unprecedented step like waiving solicitor-client privilege in this matter, like waiving cabinet confidentiality in this matter. I think it is important that Canadians get a chance to hear from a broad range of perspectives and that is exactly what they will be able to do.
Mr. Speaker, we respect the responsibility of the justice committee and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to get to the bottom of this matter and to have a full airing of this. That is why we have taken the unprecedented step of waiving cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege in regard to the matter that is under study by that committee.The members opposite do not seem to be pleased with that, because they are playing political games with it. What we are doing is allowing for a full airing of this matter at committee.
Mr. Speaker, this is what SNC-Lavalin's intervention looked like: 30 thousand dollars' worth of Canadian prostitutes given to Moammar Gadhafi's son. This is the so-called victimless crime that our woke feminist Prime Minister is moving mountains to cover up.When did the Prime Minister learn that SNC-Lavalin paid for prostitutes for Moammar Gadhafi's son?
Mr. Speaker, the problem is that she will not be able to say anything about what happened after January 14. For example, she will likely not be able to explain why, after she was shuffled, she wrote that it is a pillar of our democracy that our system of justice be free from all political interference.She will not be able to explain why she resigned from cabinet and, most importantly, she will not be able to tell us what she said during her unprecedented appearance before cabinet following her resignation, which could shed a lot of light on the situation.If the Prime Minister can give five different versions of the story, why will he not lift all of the constraints preventing the former minister of justice from telling her version?
Mr. Speaker, we know Canadians need access to telecommunications services to participate fully and to succeed in a digital economy. Canadians have expressed concerns about the quality, coverage and, most significantly, the cost of these essential services, and they are looking for lower-cost options and innovative services. Can the Prime Minister please update the House on our government's work to ensure that Canadians have access to quality services at more affordable prices?
Mr. Speaker, we set a goal of achieving the lowest poverty level in Canada's history. Yesterday the Canadian income survey showed that we hit our first target three years ahead of schedule.In the first two years of our mandate, our investments helped lift over 820,000 people out of poverty, which includes 278,000 children. Thanks to programs like the Canada child benefit, which was of course opposed by the Conservatives, we are giving every Canadian a real and fair chance at success.
Mr. Speaker, every step of the way, we will stand up for Canadian workers. We will stand up for good jobs right across this country. We will do so in a way that is consistent with our values, with our expectations and with the rule of law. That is the matter we will stay focused on in this. We will defend Canadian jobs, and we will ensure that we are being consistent, both with our values and with the rules and laws in place.
Mr. Speaker, the principle of solicitor-client privilege and the principle of cabinet confidentiality are fundamental tenets of our justice system and, indeed, of our system of government. We do not and will never take those principles lightly.
Mr. Speaker, the NDP never lets the facts get in the way of a good rhetorical question.On this side of the House, we set a goal of achieving the lowest poverty level in Canada's history, and yesterday the Canadian income survey showed that we hit our first target three years ahead of schedule. In the first two years of our mandate, our investments helped to lift 820,000 people out of poverty, including almost 300,000 children. That is what we are doing to help people in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Official Languages and I are extremely proud to be starting our study on the modernization of the Official Languages Act, which is turning 50 this year. This act has helped Canadians make great strides in linguistic development and identity building over the years. That is why the committee has launched this study. Canada's official languages are a source of national pride and an integral part of our identity. Could the Prime Minister tell us how the government will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Official Languages Act?
Mr. Speaker, we took the unprecedented step of waiving both cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege in the matter currently under study by the justice committee and the Ethics Commissioner. This is a significant step that we took. We know that Canadians need to hear different perspectives on this matter. That is why we welcome the work the committee is doing and we welcome the work the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is doing on this matter.
Most positive speeches
Mr. Speaker, we took the unprecedented step of waiving both cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege in the matter currently under study by the justice committee and the Ethics Commissioner. This is a significant step that we took. We know that Canadians need to hear different perspectives on this matter. That is why we welcome the work the committee is doing and we welcome the work the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is doing on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Official Languages and I are extremely proud to be starting our study on the modernization of the Official Languages Act, which is turning 50 this year. This act has helped Canadians make great strides in linguistic development and identity building over the years. That is why the committee has launched this study. Canada's official languages are a source of national pride and an integral part of our identity. Could the Prime Minister tell us how the government will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Official Languages Act?
Mr. Speaker, the principle of solicitor-client privilege and the principle of cabinet confidentiality are fundamental tenets of our justice system and, indeed, of our system of government. We do not and will never take those principles lightly.
Mr. Speaker, the NDP never lets the facts get in the way of a good rhetorical question.On this side of the House, we set a goal of achieving the lowest poverty level in Canada's history, and yesterday the Canadian income survey showed that we hit our first target three years ahead of schedule. In the first two years of our mandate, our investments helped to lift 820,000 people out of poverty, including almost 300,000 children. That is what we are doing to help people in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, every step of the way, we will stand up for Canadian workers. We will stand up for good jobs right across this country. We will do so in a way that is consistent with our values, with our expectations and with the rule of law. That is the matter we will stay focused on in this. We will defend Canadian jobs, and we will ensure that we are being consistent, both with our values and with the rules and laws in place.
Mr. Speaker, we set a goal of achieving the lowest poverty level in Canada's history. Yesterday the Canadian income survey showed that we hit our first target three years ahead of schedule.In the first two years of our mandate, our investments helped lift over 820,000 people out of poverty, which includes 278,000 children. Thanks to programs like the Canada child benefit, which was of course opposed by the Conservatives, we are giving every Canadian a real and fair chance at success.
Mr. Speaker, we know Canadians need access to telecommunications services to participate fully and to succeed in a digital economy. Canadians have expressed concerns about the quality, coverage and, most significantly, the cost of these essential services, and they are looking for lower-cost options and innovative services. Can the Prime Minister please update the House on our government's work to ensure that Canadians have access to quality services at more affordable prices?
Mr. Speaker, the problem is that she will not be able to say anything about what happened after January 14. For example, she will likely not be able to explain why, after she was shuffled, she wrote that it is a pillar of our democracy that our system of justice be free from all political interference.She will not be able to explain why she resigned from cabinet and, most importantly, she will not be able to tell us what she said during her unprecedented appearance before cabinet following her resignation, which could shed a lot of light on the situation.If the Prime Minister can give five different versions of the story, why will he not lift all of the constraints preventing the former minister of justice from telling her version?
Mr. Speaker, we respect the responsibility of the justice committee and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to get to the bottom of this matter and to have a full airing of this. That is why we have taken the unprecedented step of waiving cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege in regard to the matter that is under study by that committee.The members opposite do not seem to be pleased with that, because they are playing political games with it. What we are doing is allowing for a full airing of this matter at committee.
Mr. Speaker, this is what SNC-Lavalin's intervention looked like: 30 thousand dollars' worth of Canadian prostitutes given to Moammar Gadhafi's son. This is the so-called victimless crime that our woke feminist Prime Minister is moving mountains to cover up.When did the Prime Minister learn that SNC-Lavalin paid for prostitutes for Moammar Gadhafi's son?
Mr. Speaker, unlike the Harper Conservatives, we take very seriously the institutions, the processes and the procedures that are fundamental to our system of justice, to the rule of law and to our very institutions. That is why we take great care when we take an unprecedented step like waiving solicitor-client privilege in this matter, like waiving cabinet confidentiality in this matter. I think it is important that Canadians get a chance to hear from a broad range of perspectives and that is exactly what they will be able to do.
Mr. Speaker, defending our institutions, defending the rule of law and defending the independence and rigour of our justice system is something that we take very, very seriously. The decision to waive solicitor-client privilege and, indeed, cabinet confidentiality is not one to be taken lightly, but it is one that we took in this case because it is important that the justice committee and that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner are able to do their work. That is why we took that unprecedented step.
Mr. Speaker, I am extraordinarily proud of the work that the Minister of Indigenous Services is doing every single day to build a better future for indigenous peoples.In regard to northern Manitoba, it was this government that moved forward to restore rail service to Churchill. We did that in a way that partnered with indigenous communities along the way and that gave them ownership over the railroad to make sure they are integral and empowered in the future of northern Manitoba and, indeed, of northern Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we on the opposition side are not making this up. It is the former attorney general herself, who remains a Liberal member sitting on that side of the House, who clearly said that she does not have free rein to speak before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. She will not be able to speak about what happened when she was veterans affairs minister. She will not be able to speak about what happened during the meetings in Vancouver before she resigned. She will not be able to speak about what happened during last week's cabinet meeting and Liberal caucus meeting after she resigned. She will not be able to speak her truth, because the Prime Minister does not want to give her
Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, the member opposite was part of a government that did not do a good job of protecting jobs or of creating growth for Canadians. Indeed, it had the lowest growth rate of any prime minister since R. B. Bennett in the depths of the Great Depression.At the same time, in those 10 years, we saw countless examples of that government's torquing the truth in favour of partisan interests and disrespecting the judiciary, including Supreme Court judges.We will consistently stand up to create jobs, to protect jobs and to protect our institutions at the exact same time.
Mr. Speaker, this is the government that moved forward on the historic accessible Canada act for the first time, moved forward with a comprehensive approach to removing barriers for all Canadians. We recognize that a country like Canada needs to make sure that every single Canadian has a full opportunity to participate and has the support and benefits they need in order to succeed and contribute to our country. That is exactly what we have done with this historic legislation. There is still much more work to do, and we will do it, but we will do it together.
Mr. Speaker, it is important for Canadians to hear different perspectives on this matter.We announced that, where appropriate, we are waiving solicitor-client privilege, cabinet confidentiality and all other obligations of confidentiality with respect to the matters being studied by the justice committee and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. We want the committee to continue its important work. We support the work of this committee and, of course, the work of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that he needed to protect SNC-Lavalin from conviction, because they would not be able to bid on federal work and the business would go under.However, yesterday, his public services minister confirmed that a simple policy change would have allowed the company, even after conviction, to bid on those federal contracts and continue to operate.Given that revelation, and given that he was not doing this to protect workers, who was the Prime Minister trying to protect?
Mr. Speaker, the opposition seems to be shifting in its approach, because the justice committee and indeed the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner are very much focused on a very specific question that they are looking into.We have waived privilege and we have waived cabinet confidentiality so that the former attorney general can speak fully and expansively to the matter under study. That is what Canadians expect. That is exactly what we are doing, because we understand how important it is to make sure that Canadians hear a diverse range of perspectives.
Mr. Speaker, it is troubling to see that the Conservatives have chosen to play politics by going after SNC-Lavalin workers and workers across the country.Quebeckers and Canadians know very well that we will always defend jobs on this side of the House. We will always defend workers, but we will also respect the rule of law and our institutions, including the independence of our justice system. The Conservatives' attacks will not change this.
Mr. Speaker, the best way to protect our institutions is to let everyone state the facts clearly. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister denied the former attorney general of Canada that freedom to speak. She herself acknowledged that she will not be able to speak her full truth.I will ask my very simple question again. Did anyone in the PMO or in a minister's office contact SNC-Lavalin representatives to assure them there would be no criminal trial, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, we have always stood up for good jobs across the country, stood up for employers, and stood up for the workers who work so hard every day to build a better Canada and help their families, and we always will.That is exactly what we will always do, and, at the same time, we will ensure that we always comply with the law, protect the integrity of our justice system and defend our institutions. That is what Canadians expect, especially after 10 years under a Conservative government that did not do any of those things well.
Mr. Speaker, the matter before the committee and the Ethics Commissioner is very specific. That is why we have enabled the former attorney general to speak fully to the matter currently under study by the committee. This is a significant step that we took. The decision to waive solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality is not one to be taken lightly. In this case, and for this important study, I think it was the right thing to do.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for MississaugaLakeshore for his hard work and thoughtful questions. We are constantly listening to the concerns of Canadians. We are taking action to increase competition, because that is the best way to bring down the costs of services like Internet and cellphone plans.Yesterday, we proposed clear direction to the CRTC to build on our work to date. Telecommunications policy decisions must put consumers first. We need to ensure that Canadians can get the access they need at prices they can afford, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois and all Quebeckers know very well that our government takes very seriously its responsibility to protect good jobs, promote economic growth and stand up for workers.That is exactly what we are doing, but we will always do so in accordance with the laws and rules in place, while respecting our institutions and respecting the independence of our justice system. That is what all Canadians expect.
Mr. Speaker, diverse perspectives, yes, there is truth and non-truth. I remember in Sunday school they said that what is whispered in the backrooms is going to get shouted from the rooftops. This is the Prime Minister's opportunity to come clean. Stop hiding behind those legal-weasel mechanisms that are preventing the former minister from telling the whole truth. Will he waive the cabinet confidence on what was said to the member of Vancouver Granville in the lead-up to her resignation? Better yet, will the Prime Minister agree to testify about his interference in this case and come clean on this whole tawdry affair? Will he testify?
Mr. Speaker, the issue that is before the justice committee and before the Ethics Commissioner is one that Canadians want to see answers to and want to hear diverse perspectives on. That is why we waived cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege to enable the former attorney general to speak fully to the matter under study.That is what Canadians expect and that is exactly what we have delivered. The principle of confidentiality, at cabinet and in solicitor-client privilege, is an important one.
Mr. Speaker, the question that is before the justice committee and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner is entirely focused on her time as Attorney General. We know that the system of cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege is a fundamental tenet, extraordinarily important both to our democracy and to our system of justice. That is why we took the unprecedented step of waiving those elements so that Canadians could hear directly from the former attorney general on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister respects the committee, let it do its job. Let it hear from the former attorney general. We are asking the Prime Minister, and Canadians deserve the truth. They deserve an answer from the Prime Minister right now. Will the Prime Minister waive the privilege? Will he waive the cabinet confidentiality and let the former attorney general speak freely about her time as veterans affair minister and speak freely about their meeting in Vancouver? Will the Prime Minister waive the privilege?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in her letter to the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the former attorney general of Canada said that she would not be able to speak freely about the interference by the Prime Minister and his cronies. If we understand correctly, everyone who has appeared before the committee has been able to tell everything they knew, except the former attorney general. She will be the only witness who cannot speak freely.Could the Prime Minister just tell us why he is trying to muzzle her instead of freeing her to tell Canadians everything she knows?
Mr. Speaker, we have made historic investments in infrastructure, including in partnership with indigenous communities right across the country. I personally had the pleasure and honour to spend some time with the community in Hatchet Lake one winter a few years ago and got to see directly the challenges they are facing. That is why this government is committed to reconciliation, to investment, to partnership with indigenous communities right across this country to make sure we are building a better future together for everyone in this country.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had no trouble talking about that period of time after he had fired her as Attorney General and until she resigned. The Clerk of the Privy Council had no trouble talking about that period of time after the former attorney general was moved along and then resigned.Why is the Prime Minister preventing the person who was fired and who resigned from sharing her full truth? Why is he placing restraints on her? Why will he not do the right thing and lift them right now?
Mr. Speaker, first nations leaders from Manitoba came to Ottawa this week to once again call on the government to respect their rights and move on treaty land entitlement. For two months they asked to meet with the new minister, but he could not be bothered. When he was appointed, he said he had a lot to learn, yet he could not bother to walk two blocks to meet with leaders who want to help him understand his historic obligation. Learning? This is failing the test.Will the Prime Minister direct his minister to do his homework, and will the government stop disrespecting first nations' rights to land?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not answering the question. Will the Prime Minister, right now, give permission to the former attorney general to speak freely about her time as veterans affairs minister, about the meetings she had with the Prime Minister in Vancouver and her presentation to cabinet last week, and if not, why not?
Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of the SNC-Lavalin saga, the Prime Minister sent mixed messages to Canadians. First, he refused to allow the former attorney general to speak at all. Then he gave in but only a little bit. This week, she wrote the justice committee and said that she will not be able to tell us anything as to what happened after January 14.Are these the actions of a Prime Minister who says that sunlight is the best disinfectant? Enough is enough. Will the Prime Minister let the former attorney general tell her story, speak her truth and tell Canadians exactly what happened?
Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite has deep respect for our justice system and for the fundamentals of that justice system and knows full well that solicitor-client privilege is one of the foundational tenets of our justice system and that cabinet confidentiality is one of the fundamental necessary tenets of the functioning of our democratic system. That is why, when we take the step to waive cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege in this matter, he must recognize it as a significant step toward
Mr. Speaker, we take very seriously the matter before the justice committee and indeed the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That is why, as a government, we were determined to take the unprecedented step of waiving cabinet confidentiality, of waiving solicitor-client privilege, which allows the former attorney general to speak fully to the matter in question. This is something that Canadians expect. They want to be able to hear different perspectives on this matter and that is exactly what they are going to get to hear.
Mr. Speaker, hundreds of young people sent an SOS to all politicians during the La planète s'invite à l'école event. They know that their generation will pay the price for global warming.Will the Liberals listen to them and include measures in the budget to end fossil fuel subsidies and massive investments in renewable energy?Given the urgent need to address climate change, young people understand that the time for dithering and half-measures is over. Will the Liberals recognize this and take appropriate action?
Mr. Speaker, last summer the government announced Opportunity for All, Canada's first-ever national poverty reduction strategy. The strategy highlights all the investments the government has made in the fight against poverty. It also sets ambitious targets of reducing poverty by 20% by 2020, and by 50% by 2030.Could the Prime Minister tell the House what progress is being made towards meeting these targets?
Mr. Speaker, if we need to hear all perspectives, then we need to hear her full perspective. Will the Prime Minister do this very simple thing. Will he write a letter right now, he has just over an hour, and tell the former attorney general that she can speak about the time when she was veterans affairs minister, she can talk about their conversations in Vancouver before she resigned and she can talk about what she told cabinet last week. It is very simple. Will he do that right now?
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we will always defend Canadian jobs. We will always defend workers. We will always defend pensioners. We will always stand up for the economic growth that, unfortunately, simply did not happen under 10 years of Conservative government.At the same time, what also did not happen under 10 years of the Conservative government is respect for our institutions, respect for the independence of law, and the kinds of thoughtful processes that actually defend our justice system. That is exactly what we are doing, at the same time: We are protecting jobs while standing up for the rule of law in this country.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals were dragged kicking and screaming to the justice committee before they even started to allow people to give testimony. They are still only allowing half the story to be told, the half of the story the Prime Minister is comfortable hearing. There is more to this story. Something happened. Something was said to the former attorney general or someone in the Prime Minister's Office validated her accusations that she lost her job because she would not let his friends off the hook. Is that why the Prime Minister will not waive full privilege in this matter?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that he is pleased that the former attorney general can share her perspective on SNC-Lavalin. Now we know why. He is still dictating what she can and cannot say about this Liberal corruption scandal.If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, why is he still trying to silence the former attorney general?
Mr. Speaker, the members opposite do not seem to want to talk anymore about the fact that every step of the way we stood up for good jobs across this country, we stood up for Canadian workers and we stood up for the growth of our economy, which we have been delivering on over the past three years, while at the same time defending our institutions, defending the independence of our judiciary and standing up for the rule of law. That is what Canadians expect of this government, of any government, and that is exactly what we are delivering on in every different instance.
Mr. Speaker, we have done what Canadians expect of us every step of the way. We have stood up for jobs, stood up for workers and invested in our country's economic growth, while at the same time defending our institutions, standing up for the rule of law and defending the independence of our judiciary. That is what we have always done, and that is what we will always do, to protect jobs and to protect our institutions at the exact same time.
Mr. Speaker, we have empowered the former attorney general to share all of her experiences and give full testimony regarding the matter before that committee.I understand that the members opposite are using this matter to try to score political points. We on this side are interested in the rigorous process that is under way. That is what we always do, and what we will always do. We respect our institutions, while also standing up to protect the workers and businesses across this country that deserve to be supported, not attacked, as the opposition is doing.
Mr. Speaker, the matter in question before the justice committee and before the Ethics Commissioner is focused on her time as Attorney General, and that is why when we went forward to waive confidentiality in regard to solicitor-client privilege, in regard to cabinet confidence, we took very seriously this unprecedented step, because we know that Canadians need to hear all perspectives on this. That is why we are moving forward in a responsible way that respects our institutions.
Mr. Speaker, the members opposite have moved entirely off the actual matter in question, which is regarding what happened while she was attorney general and minister of justice. This is something we know Canadians want to hear and that is why we have taken the unprecedented step of waiving cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege to enable the former attorney general to speak to the matter it is studying at committee.
Mr. Speaker, we did what Canadians expect us to, which is to stand up for jobs, defend Canadian workers and defend the economic growth that did not happen under 10 years of Stephen Harper, while at the same time protecting our institutions, standing up for the rule of law and defending the integrity and the independence of our judicial system.That is what this government has always done. That is what we will always do.
Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning, I have always been very clear about what we did.As we have always done, we will continue to stand up for jobs, workers and businesses across the country while respecting and protecting our institutions, the rule of law and the principles of our democracy.That is what we are doing now by waiving solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality so the former attorney general can speak to the matter.
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister and Minister of Youth, I have the opportunity to spend a lot of time speaking to youth across the country. Despite what the NDP is saying, young people understand that we cannot choose between economic growth and environmental protection. We must do both at the same time.That is exactly what we are doing by putting a price on pollution and investing in safer ways to transport our resources to markets other than the United States. That is what young people expect and that is what we will continue to do.
Mr. Speaker, northerners are taking part in the ice road jigging challenge to raise awareness about ice road communities. Their message is clear: We need roads that work all year to bring supplies to our communities and to travel to doctor appointments. The Liberals do not seem to understand the climate change is making Hatchet Lake first nation inaccessible because the ice roads are open for shorter periods of time. Why does the Liberal government keep neglecting the basic needs of northerners?
Mr. Speaker, we have confidence in the processes under way at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the office of the Ethics Commissioner. That is why we waived the confidentiality requirement that was preventing the former attorney general from speaking fully at committee. We want her to share her perspective on the matter before the committee, and that is exactly what we have allowed her to do.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is not unprecedented. Other prime ministers have waived full privilege when it related to investigations during their time in office.For weeks, the Prime Minister was speaking for the former attorney general. Now he is deciding what is relevant. He is deciding what he is going to allow her to speak.This is a very simple question. Why will he not waive privilege for the time period between when she lost her job and when she resigned from cabinet? What is he trying to hide?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is preventing the former attorney general from speaking. She specifically said that he is preventing her from speaking about her time when she was veterans affairs minister, about the conversations they had just before she resigned, specifically in Vancouver, and from what she told cabinet last week. Why is it that the Prime Minister only wants his version of their interactions to be disclosed? What is he hiding?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister still fails to answer the question. He claimed for so long that he needed to allow SNC-Lavalin to avoid conviction so it could continue to have federal contracts. We now know from his own minister's admission that a simple policy change would allow SNC-Lavalin to go on getting contracts and employing people. That cannot be his real motivation.Obviously, the Prime Minister was protecting someone else. If this is not about protecting jobs, who was he protecting?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has expressed his admiration for dictators and some might say that he wants to lead Canada in that way.In the SNC-Lavalin case, the former attorney general wanted to enforce the law, but that did not suit the Prime Minister. He, his chief of staff, his principal secretary, and even the Clerk of the Privy Council pressured the former attorney general to halt the trial, which began on October 29.What lawful authority did the Prime Minister have to get his collaborators to talk to the former attorney general's staff on December 18?
Mr. Speaker, we understand that the members opposite want to maximize the political impact of this matter. However, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Ethics Commissioner are looking into a very specific question.We waived solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality to allow the former attorney general to speak fully to the matter in question. That is exactly what Canadians deserve, and that is what we did.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been refusing to tell the truth since the news about SNC-Lavalin broke.For nearly three weeks now, the message has changed daily. He even refused to let the former attorney general speak while allowing the current Attorney General to speak everyday. It is completely ridiculous.After question period today, the Prime Minister will finally let the member for Vancouver Granville talk about what happened, but only some of what happened.The Prime Minister promised to be different, so why is he not giving her free rein to speak her truth?
Mr. Speaker, the former minister of justice has let it be known that she is still being silenced by the Prime Minister regarding the conversations that occurred between her and the Prime Minister's Office prior to her decision to step down as veterans affairs minister.The Bob Fife story broke on February 7. On February 11, the Prime Minister said that her continued presence in cabinet was a sign that everything was hunky-dory. She quit the next day.We know she was under intense pressure in that period. The simple questions are these: Who spoke to her from the PMO? What was said? Why is the Prime Minister refusing to let her tell her whole story?
Mr. Speaker, throughout the byelection in Burnaby South, people made it clear to Jagmeet Singh that the Liberals only care about the wealthy and the well connected. Everyday Canadians are struggling to put food on the table. They cannot afford the medication that they need. While the Liberals will move heaven and earth to help the corporate elite, everyday Canadians are left behind. All Canadians deserve safe, affordable housing, public universal pharmacare and food on the table. No more delays. No more excuses. Will the Prime Minister put everyday Canadians first for a change, and make real investments in budget 2019 for the people who are most in need?
Mr. Speaker, the former attorney general of Canada will be testifying before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights this afternoon, but that does not mean that we will get the whole story. Any actions or communications involving her that occurred after January 14, the day she was shuffled to Veterans Affairs, are off limits. Allowing her to tell only half the story could leave us with more questions than answers.Why go to so much effort to control what she wants to say?Why not allow her to talk about stepping down from cabinet, for example?Is the Prime Minister's Office that afraid of what she has to say?
Mr. Speaker, in less than an hour, the former attorney general will be testifying before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Unfortunately, she will not be able to speak her full truth because the Prime Minister will not let her. We are not the ones saying this. It is the former attorney general herself who said it.However, the Prime Minister can reassure Canadians by answering a very simple question here in the House.Did anyone in the PMO or in a minister's office contact SNC-Lavalin representatives to assure them that they would not have to go to trial, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There seemed to have been some confusion on the Liberal side during question period. The Liberals seem to think that the allegations that were made today come from the Conservative side, but it is, in fact, from the former attorney general herself. I would ask for unanimous consent to table the letter that the former attorney general wrote to the justice committee, which indicates that the Prime Minister's actions fall short of what is required when it comes waiving privilege in this case.
Check the fine print, Mr. Speaker, because there is an important detail that the Prime Minister is leaving out. Something happened between the time the former attorney general lost her job for speaking truth to power until the day she resigned from cabinet that the Prime Minister is desperate to keep hidden from Canadians. Could the Prime Minister confirm that sometime in that period of time something was said to the former attorney general that proved she lost her job because she stood up to him?
Mr. Speaker, no one should be breaking the law to protect jobs.On December 19, the Prime Minister and his cabinet had lunch with the Clerk of the Privy Council. Later in the day, the clerk called the former attorney general to ask her to stop the trial. The Prime Minister, his chief of staff, his principal secretary and the Clerk of the Privy Council are all involved.What lawful authority did the Prime Minister have to instruct the clerk to put pressure on the former attorney general? Canadians want to know.
Mr. Speaker, for 10 years Canadians watched Stephen Harper and his Conservatives disrespect their institutions, play games with the rule of law, and meddle with the independence of the judiciary. They expect a government to stand up and defend our institutions, including one of the fundamental tenets of our justice system, which is solicitor-client privilege, and indeed a fundamental tenet of our government, which is cabinet confidentiality. When we made the decision to waive those elements so that the former attorney general can speak to this matter, that is a big deal.
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite obviously misunderstands what the order in council is all about. It is actually about waiving solicitor-client privilege and waiving cabinet confidentiality so that the former attorney general can speak to
Mr. Speaker, what our government has done every step of the way is stand up and defend workers and jobs in Quebec and across the country, and stand up for the companies and the work that Canadians do across the country.We will always stand up for Canadian jobs, while respecting the independence of our judicial system, our institutions, and the rule of law.That is what we have always done and that is what we will always do.
Mr. Speaker, no, not to our knowledge.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's order in council prevents the former attorney general from discussing her resignation from cabinet, the presentation that she gave to cabinet following her resignation and discussions that she had upon being fired as the Attorney General, all matters relevant to getting to the heart of the truth.Why is the Prime Minister trying to silence his former attorney general? What is he afraid of?
Mr. Speaker, former Ontario Liberal attorney general Michael Bryant stated that a crime may have been committed when the Prime Minister conspired to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with bribery. Legal experts, including a former judge, agree that a crime may have been committed and that the RCMP should investigate.I have a simple question requiring a simple answer. Has the Prime Minister, any former or current cabinet minister, or anyone in his office been contacted by the RCMP?
Mr. Speaker, that is what the Prime Minister would like Canadians to believe, but the facts tell otherwise. He is refusing to let his former attorney general share her entire story. Here is what she had to say yesterday, the Order in Council leaves in place whatever restraints there are on my ability to speak freely about matters that occurred after I left the post of Attorney General.What happened between the time she was removed as attorney general to the day that she resigned that the Prime Minister is so desperate to keep hidden?
Mr. Speaker, when the member opposite qualifies fundamental tenets of our justice system, of our cabinet government, as weasel words, we see the partisan political approach that he is desperate to take. On this side of the House, we respect our institutions, we respect the full integrity of our justice system and that is why we take very carefully and seriously the responsibility to defend those institutions and always will. That is why we took the important step of waiving in this matter the confidentiality.
Mr. Speaker, in just a moment, I will ask for the unanimous consent of the House, because the National Energy Board has once again failed in its duty regarding official languages. This is such a serious situation that I am sure you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House condemn the actions of the National Energy Board, which tabled its reconsideration report on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project in English only, and call on the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie to use her regulatory powers to ensure that all reports from federal agencies are systematically tabled in both official languages.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the former attorney general wrote to the chair of the justice committee to indicate that the Prime Minister's order in council falls short of what is required in terms of sharing all relevant information. The Prime Minister has just a little over an hour. If he truly has nothing to hide, then why will he not simply lift all solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality? What is he afraid of?
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the Prime Minister is aware that the former attorney general has written a letter to the justice committee explaining that the order in council that the Prime Minister keeps bragging about falls far short of what is required. She said: [It] does nothing to release me from any restrictions that apply to communications while I served as Minister of Veterans Affairs.... The letter goes on: [and it] leaves in place whatever restraints there are on my ability to speak freely about matters that occurred after I left the post of Attorney General. Why has the Prime Minister kept the restraints on the former attorney general unless he is afraid of what she is going to say?
Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, I stood in this House to raise the alarm on the increase in rejections of disability tax credit applications. It is a disturbing fact that there is a 60% increase in rejections. To make matters worse, Liberals have clawed back over $26 million from people with severe and prolonged impairments. They still have not fixed this problem. Liberals are clearly out of touch. What Canadians really want to know is how the Liberals could let this happen.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for MadawaskaRestigouche for his hard work on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Conservative politicians across the country are attacking the French fact in Canada, backed by the Conservative Party leader across the aisle. We will always stand up for minority language communities. I have asked the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie to review and modernize the Official Languages Act. Our goal is to ensure that the act responds to the challenges arising from the transformations that Canada has undergone and to always protect our official language minority communities.
Mr. Speaker, it is always we will, we will, we will.The Prime Minister has known for over a year now that SNC-Lavalin risks losing all government contracts if there is no remediation agreement. His inaction has cost SNC-Lavalin $1.6 billion over the past few months. Funds belonging to the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, the nest egg of Quebeckers, are at stake. His inaction could cost Quebec thousands of jobs and a head office. Why has the Prime Minister turned his back on the workers at SNC-Lavalin?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that if he had allowed SNC-Lavalin to face criminal conviction, the company would be banned from getting federal contracts and would go out of business.However, in December 2015 the government gave SNC-Lavalin a deal exempting it from the ban despite criminal charges. Now the government is changing the policy to exempt SNC-Lavalin even if it gets convicted.If the Prime Minister plans to allow SNC-Lavalin to get contracts even after a conviction, why did he need to intervene to stop the company from going to trial in the first place?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister conspired to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with bribery, and this is what the bribery looked like
Mr. Speaker, we took the unprecedented step of waiving both cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege in the matter currently under study by the justice committee and the Ethics Commissioner. This is a significant step that we took. We know that Canadians need to hear different perspectives on this matter. That is why we welcome the work the committee is doing and we welcome the work the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is doing on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Official Languages and I are extremely proud to be starting our study on the modernization of the Official Languages Act, which is turning 50 this year. This act has helped Canadians make great strides in linguistic development and identity building over the years. That is why the committee has launched this study. Canada's official languages are a source of national pride and an integral part of our identity. Could the Prime Minister tell us how the government will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Official Languages Act?
Mr. Speaker, the principle of solicitor-client privilege and the principle of cabinet confidentiality are fundamental tenets of our justice system and, indeed, of our system of government. We do not and will never take those principles lightly.
Mr. Speaker, the NDP never lets the facts get in the way of a good rhetorical question.On this side of the House, we set a goal of achieving the lowest poverty level in Canada's history, and yesterday the Canadian income survey showed that we hit our first target three years ahead of schedule. In the first two years of our mandate, our investments helped to lift 820,000 people out of poverty, including almost 300,000 children. That is what we are doing to help people in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, every step of the way, we will stand up for Canadian workers. We will stand up for good jobs right across this country. We will do so in a way that is consistent with our values, with our expectations and with the rule of law. That is the matter we will stay focused on in this. We will defend Canadian jobs, and we will ensure that we are being consistent, both with our values and with the rules and laws in place.
Mr. Speaker, we set a goal of achieving the lowest poverty level in Canada's history. Yesterday the Canadian income survey showed that we hit our first target three years ahead of schedule.In the first two years of our mandate, our investments helped lift over 820,000 people out of poverty, which includes 278,000 children. Thanks to programs like the Canada child benefit, which was of course opposed by the Conservatives, we are giving every Canadian a real and fair chance at success.
Mr. Speaker, we know Canadians need access to telecommunications services to participate fully and to succeed in a digital economy. Canadians have expressed concerns about the quality, coverage and, most significantly, the cost of these essential services, and they are looking for lower-cost options and innovative services. Can the Prime Minister please update the House on our government's work to ensure that Canadians have access to quality services at more affordable prices?
Mr. Speaker, the problem is that she will not be able to say anything about what happened after January 14. For example, she will likely not be able to explain why, after she was shuffled, she wrote that it is a pillar of our democracy that our system of justice be free from all political interference.She will not be able to explain why she resigned from cabinet and, most importantly, she will not be able to tell us what she said during her unprecedented appearance before cabinet following her resignation, which could shed a lot of light on the situation.If the Prime Minister can give five different versions of the story, why will he not lift all of the constraints preventing the former minister of justice from telling her version?
Mr. Speaker, we respect the responsibility of the justice committee and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to get to the bottom of this matter and to have a full airing of this. That is why we have taken the unprecedented step of waiving cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege in regard to the matter that is under study by that committee.The members opposite do not seem to be pleased with that, because they are playing political games with it. What we are doing is allowing for a full airing of this matter at committee.
Mr. Speaker, this is what SNC-Lavalin's intervention looked like: 30 thousand dollars' worth of Canadian prostitutes given to Moammar Gadhafi's son. This is the so-called victimless crime that our woke feminist Prime Minister is moving mountains to cover up.When did the Prime Minister learn that SNC-Lavalin paid for prostitutes for Moammar Gadhafi's son?
Mr. Speaker, unlike the Harper Conservatives, we take very seriously the institutions, the processes and the procedures that are fundamental to our system of justice, to the rule of law and to our very institutions. That is why we take great care when we take an unprecedented step like waiving solicitor-client privilege in this matter, like waiving cabinet confidentiality in this matter. I think it is important that Canadians get a chance to hear from a broad range of perspectives and that is exactly what they will be able to do.
Mr. Speaker, defending our institutions, defending the rule of law and defending the independence and rigour of our justice system is something that we take very, very seriously. The decision to waive solicitor-client privilege and, indeed, cabinet confidentiality is not one to be taken lightly, but it is one that we took in this case because it is important that the justice committee and that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner are able to do their work. That is why we took that unprecedented step.
Mr. Speaker, I am extraordinarily proud of the work that the Minister of Indigenous Services is doing every single day to build a better future for indigenous peoples.In regard to northern Manitoba, it was this government that moved forward to restore rail service to Churchill. We did that in a way that partnered with indigenous communities along the way and that gave them ownership over the railroad to make sure they are integral and empowered in the future of northern Manitoba and, indeed, of northern Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we on the opposition side are not making this up. It is the former attorney general herself, who remains a Liberal member sitting on that side of the House, who clearly said that she does not have free rein to speak before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. She will not be able to speak about what happened when she was veterans affairs minister. She will not be able to speak about what happened during the meetings in Vancouver before she resigned. She will not be able to speak about what happened during last week's cabinet meeting and Liberal caucus meeting after she resigned. She will not be able to speak her truth, because the Prime Minister does not want to give her
Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, the member opposite was part of a government that did not do a good job of protecting jobs or of creating growth for Canadians. Indeed, it had the lowest growth rate of any prime minister since R. B. Bennett in the depths of the Great Depression.At the same time, in those 10 years, we saw countless examples of that government's torquing the truth in favour of partisan interests and disrespecting the judiciary, including Supreme Court judges.We will consistently stand up to create jobs, to protect jobs and to protect our institutions at the exact same time.
Mr. Speaker, this is the government that moved forward on the historic accessible Canada act for the first time, moved forward with a comprehensive approach to removing barriers for all Canadians. We recognize that a country like Canada needs to make sure that every single Canadian has a full opportunity to participate and has the support and benefits they need in order to succeed and contribute to our country. That is exactly what we have done with this historic legislation. There is still much more work to do, and we will do it, but we will do it together.
Mr. Speaker, it is important for Canadians to hear different perspectives on this matter.We announced that, where appropriate, we are waiving solicitor-client privilege, cabinet confidentiality and all other obligations of confidentiality with respect to the matters being studied by the justice committee and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. We want the committee to continue its important work. We support the work of this committee and, of course, the work of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that he needed to protect SNC-Lavalin from conviction, because they would not be able to bid on federal work and the business would go under.However, yesterday, his public services minister confirmed that a simple policy change would have allowed the company, even after conviction, to bid on those federal contracts and continue to operate.Given that revelation, and given that he was not doing this to protect workers, who was the Prime Minister trying to protect?
Mr. Speaker, the opposition seems to be shifting in its approach, because the justice committee and indeed the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner are very much focused on a very specific question that they are looking into.We have waived privilege and we have waived cabinet confidentiality so that the former attorney general can speak fully and expansively to the matter under study. That is what Canadians expect. That is exactly what we are doing, because we understand how important it is to make sure that Canadians hear a diverse range of perspectives.
Mr. Speaker, it is troubling to see that the Conservatives have chosen to play politics by going after SNC-Lavalin workers and workers across the country.Quebeckers and Canadians know very well that we will always defend jobs on this side of the House. We will always defend workers, but we will also respect the rule of law and our institutions, including the independence of our justice system. The Conservatives' attacks will not change this.
Mr. Speaker, the best way to protect our institutions is to let everyone state the facts clearly. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister denied the former attorney general of Canada that freedom to speak. She herself acknowledged that she will not be able to speak her full truth.I will ask my very simple question again. Did anyone in the PMO or in a minister's office contact SNC-Lavalin representatives to assure them there would be no criminal trial, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, we have always stood up for good jobs across the country, stood up for employers, and stood up for the workers who work so hard every day to build a better Canada and help their families, and we always will.That is exactly what we will always do, and, at the same time, we will ensure that we always comply with the law, protect the integrity of our justice system and defend our institutions. That is what Canadians expect, especially after 10 years under a Conservative government that did not do any of those things well.
Mr. Speaker, the matter before the committee and the Ethics Commissioner is very specific. That is why we have enabled the former attorney general to speak fully to the matter currently under study by the committee. This is a significant step that we took. The decision to waive solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality is not one to be taken lightly. In this case, and for this important study, I think it was the right thing to do.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for MississaugaLakeshore for his hard work and thoughtful questions. We are constantly listening to the concerns of Canadians. We are taking action to increase competition, because that is the best way to bring down the costs of services like Internet and cellphone plans.Yesterday, we proposed clear direction to the CRTC to build on our work to date. Telecommunications policy decisions must put consumers first. We need to ensure that Canadians can get the access they need at prices they can afford, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois and all Quebeckers know very well that our government takes very seriously its responsibility to protect good jobs, promote economic growth and stand up for workers.That is exactly what we are doing, but we will always do so in accordance with the laws and rules in place, while respecting our institutions and respecting the independence of our justice system. That is what all Canadians expect.
Mr. Speaker, diverse perspectives, yes, there is truth and non-truth. I remember in Sunday school they said that what is whispered in the backrooms is going to get shouted from the rooftops. This is the Prime Minister's opportunity to come clean. Stop hiding behind those legal-weasel mechanisms that are preventing the former minister from telling the whole truth. Will he waive the cabinet confidence on what was said to the member of Vancouver Granville in the lead-up to her resignation? Better yet, will the Prime Minister agree to testify about his interference in this case and come clean on this whole tawdry affair? Will he testify?
Mr. Speaker, the issue that is before the justice committee and before the Ethics Commissioner is one that Canadians want to see answers to and want to hear diverse perspectives on. That is why we waived cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege to enable the former attorney general to speak fully to the matter under study.That is what Canadians expect and that is exactly what we have delivered. The principle of confidentiality, at cabinet and in solicitor-client privilege, is an important one.
Mr. Speaker, the question that is before the justice committee and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner is entirely focused on her time as Attorney General. We know that the system of cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege is a fundamental tenet, extraordinarily important both to our democracy and to our system of justice. That is why we took the unprecedented step of waiving those elements so that Canadians could hear directly from the former attorney general on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister respects the committee, let it do its job. Let it hear from the former attorney general. We are asking the Prime Minister, and Canadians deserve the truth. They deserve an answer from the Prime Minister right now. Will the Prime Minister waive the privilege? Will he waive the cabinet confidentiality and let the former attorney general speak freely about her time as veterans affair minister and speak freely about their meeting in Vancouver? Will the Prime Minister waive the privilege?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in her letter to the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the former attorney general of Canada said that she would not be able to speak freely about the interference by the Prime Minister and his cronies. If we understand correctly, everyone who has appeared before the committee has been able to tell everything they knew, except the former attorney general. She will be the only witness who cannot speak freely.Could the Prime Minister just tell us why he is trying to muzzle her instead of freeing her to tell Canadians everything she knows?
Mr. Speaker, we have made historic investments in infrastructure, including in partnership with indigenous communities right across the country. I personally had the pleasure and honour to spend some time with the community in Hatchet Lake one winter a few years ago and got to see directly the challenges they are facing. That is why this government is committed to reconciliation, to investment, to partnership with indigenous communities right across this country to make sure we are building a better future together for everyone in this country.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had no trouble talking about that period of time after he had fired her as Attorney General and until she resigned. The Clerk of the Privy Council had no trouble talking about that period of time after the former attorney general was moved along and then resigned.Why is the Prime Minister preventing the person who was fired and who resigned from sharing her full truth? Why is he placing restraints on her? Why will he not do the right thing and lift them right now?
Mr. Speaker, first nations leaders from Manitoba came to Ottawa this week to once again call on the government to respect their rights and move on treaty land entitlement. For two months they asked to meet with the new minister, but he could not be bothered. When he was appointed, he said he had a lot to learn, yet he could not bother to walk two blocks to meet with leaders who want to help him understand his historic obligation. Learning? This is failing the test.Will the Prime Minister direct his minister to do his homework, and will the government stop disrespecting first nations' rights to land?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not answering the question. Will the Prime Minister, right now, give permission to the former attorney general to speak freely about her time as veterans affairs minister, about the meetings she had with the Prime Minister in Vancouver and her presentation to cabinet last week, and if not, why not?
Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of the SNC-Lavalin saga, the Prime Minister sent mixed messages to Canadians. First, he refused to allow the former attorney general to speak at all. Then he gave in but only a little bit. This week, she wrote the justice committee and said that she will not be able to tell us anything as to what happened after January 14.Are these the actions of a Prime Minister who says that sunlight is the best disinfectant? Enough is enough. Will the Prime Minister let the former attorney general tell her story, speak her truth and tell Canadians exactly what happened?
Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite has deep respect for our justice system and for the fundamentals of that justice system and knows full well that solicitor-client privilege is one of the foundational tenets of our justice system and that cabinet confidentiality is one of the fundamental necessary tenets of the functioning of our democratic system. That is why, when we take the step to waive cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege in this matter, he must recognize it as a significant step toward
Mr. Speaker, we take very seriously the matter before the justice committee and indeed the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That is why, as a government, we were determined to take the unprecedented step of waiving cabinet confidentiality, of waiving solicitor-client privilege, which allows the former attorney general to speak fully to the matter in question. This is something that Canadians expect. They want to be able to hear different perspectives on this matter and that is exactly what they are going to get to hear.
Mr. Speaker, hundreds of young people sent an SOS to all politicians during the La planète s'invite à l'école event. They know that their generation will pay the price for global warming.Will the Liberals listen to them and include measures in the budget to end fossil fuel subsidies and massive investments in renewable energy?Given the urgent need to address climate change, young people understand that the time for dithering and half-measures is over. Will the Liberals recognize this and take appropriate action?
Mr. Speaker, last summer the government announced Opportunity for All, Canada's first-ever national poverty reduction strategy. The strategy highlights all the investments the government has made in the fight against poverty. It also sets ambitious targets of reducing poverty by 20% by 2020, and by 50% by 2030.Could the Prime Minister tell the House what progress is being made towards meeting these targets?
Mr. Speaker, if we need to hear all perspectives, then we need to hear her full perspective. Will the Prime Minister do this very simple thing. Will he write a letter right now, he has just over an hour, and tell the former attorney general that she can speak about the time when she was veterans affairs minister, she can talk about their conversations in Vancouver before she resigned and she can talk about what she told cabinet last week. It is very simple. Will he do that right now?
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we will always defend Canadian jobs. We will always defend workers. We will always defend pensioners. We will always stand up for the economic growth that, unfortunately, simply did not happen under 10 years of Conservative government.At the same time, what also did not happen under 10 years of the Conservative government is respect for our institutions, respect for the independence of law, and the kinds of thoughtful processes that actually defend our justice system. That is exactly what we are doing, at the same time: We are protecting jobs while standing up for the rule of law in this country.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals were dragged kicking and screaming to the justice committee before they even started to allow people to give testimony. They are still only allowing half the story to be told, the half of the story the Prime Minister is comfortable hearing. There is more to this story. Something happened. Something was said to the former attorney general or someone in the Prime Minister's Office validated her accusations that she lost her job because she would not let his friends off the hook. Is that why the Prime Minister will not waive full privilege in this matter?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that he is pleased that the former attorney general can share her perspective on SNC-Lavalin. Now we know why. He is still dictating what she can and cannot say about this Liberal corruption scandal.If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, why is he still trying to silence the former attorney general?
Mr. Speaker, the members opposite do not seem to want to talk anymore about the fact that every step of the way we stood up for good jobs across this country, we stood up for Canadian workers and we stood up for the growth of our economy, which we have been delivering on over the past three years, while at the same time defending our institutions, defending the independence of our judiciary and standing up for the rule of law. That is what Canadians expect of this government, of any government, and that is exactly what we are delivering on in every different instance.
Mr. Speaker, we have done what Canadians expect of us every step of the way. We have stood up for jobs, stood up for workers and invested in our country's economic growth, while at the same time defending our institutions, standing up for the rule of law and defending the independence of our judiciary. That is what we have always done, and that is what we will always do, to protect jobs and to protect our institutions at the exact same time.
Mr. Speaker, we have empowered the former attorney general to share all of her experiences and give full testimony regarding the matter before that committee.I understand that the members opposite are using this matter to try to score political points. We on this side are interested in the rigorous process that is under way. That is what we always do, and what we will always do. We respect our institutions, while also standing up to protect the workers and businesses across this country that deserve to be supported, not attacked, as the opposition is doing.
Mr. Speaker, the matter in question before the justice committee and before the Ethics Commissioner is focused on her time as Attorney General, and that is why when we went forward to waive confidentiality in regard to solicitor-client privilege, in regard to cabinet confidence, we took very seriously this unprecedented step, because we know that Canadians need to hear all perspectives on this. That is why we are moving forward in a responsible way that respects our institutions.
Mr. Speaker, the members opposite have moved entirely off the actual matter in question, which is regarding what happened while she was attorney general and minister of justice. This is something we know Canadians want to hear and that is why we have taken the unprecedented step of waiving cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege to enable the former attorney general to speak to the matter it is studying at committee.
Mr. Speaker, we did what Canadians expect us to, which is to stand up for jobs, defend Canadian workers and defend the economic growth that did not happen under 10 years of Stephen Harper, while at the same time protecting our institutions, standing up for the rule of law and defending the integrity and the independence of our judicial system.That is what this government has always done. That is what we will always do.
Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning, I have always been very clear about what we did.As we have always done, we will continue to stand up for jobs, workers and businesses across the country while respecting and protecting our institutions, the rule of law and the principles of our democracy.That is what we are doing now by waiving solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality so the former attorney general can speak to the matter.
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister and Minister of Youth, I have the opportunity to spend a lot of time speaking to youth across the country. Despite what the NDP is saying, young people understand that we cannot choose between economic growth and environmental protection. We must do both at the same time.That is exactly what we are doing by putting a price on pollution and investing in safer ways to transport our resources to markets other than the United States. That is what young people expect and that is what we will continue to do.
Mr. Speaker, northerners are taking part in the ice road jigging challenge to raise awareness about ice road communities. Their message is clear: We need roads that work all year to bring supplies to our communities and to travel to doctor appointments. The Liberals do not seem to understand the climate change is making Hatchet Lake first nation inaccessible because the ice roads are open for shorter periods of time. Why does the Liberal government keep neglecting the basic needs of northerners?
Mr. Speaker, we have confidence in the processes under way at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the office of the Ethics Commissioner. That is why we waived the confidentiality requirement that was preventing the former attorney general from speaking fully at committee. We want her to share her perspective on the matter before the committee, and that is exactly what we have allowed her to do.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is not unprecedented. Other prime ministers have waived full privilege when it related to investigations during their time in office.For weeks, the Prime Minister was speaking for the former attorney general. Now he is deciding what is relevant. He is deciding what he is going to allow her to speak.This is a very simple question. Why will he not waive privilege for the time period between when she lost her job and when she resigned from cabinet? What is he trying to hide?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is preventing the former attorney general from speaking. She specifically said that he is preventing her from speaking about her time when she was veterans affairs minister, about the conversations they had just before she resigned, specifically in Vancouver, and from what she told cabinet last week. Why is it that the Prime Minister only wants his version of their interactions to be disclosed? What is he hiding?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister still fails to answer the question. He claimed for so long that he needed to allow SNC-Lavalin to avoid conviction so it could continue to have federal contracts. We now know from his own minister's admission that a simple policy change would allow SNC-Lavalin to go on getting contracts and employing people. That cannot be his real motivation.Obviously, the Prime Minister was protecting someone else. If this is not about protecting jobs, who was he protecting?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has expressed his admiration for dictators and some might say that he wants to lead Canada in that way.In the SNC-Lavalin case, the former attorney general wanted to enforce the law, but that did not suit the Prime Minister. He, his chief of staff, his principal secretary, and even the Clerk of the Privy Council pressured the former attorney general to halt the trial, which began on October 29.What lawful authority did the Prime Minister have to get his collaborators to talk to the former attorney general's staff on December 18?
Mr. Speaker, we understand that the members opposite want to maximize the political impact of this matter. However, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Ethics Commissioner are looking into a very specific question.We waived solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality to allow the former attorney general to speak fully to the matter in question. That is exactly what Canadians deserve, and that is what we did.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been refusing to tell the truth since the news about SNC-Lavalin broke.For nearly three weeks now, the message has changed daily. He even refused to let the former attorney general speak while allowing the current Attorney General to speak everyday. It is completely ridiculous.After question period today, the Prime Minister will finally let the member for Vancouver Granville talk about what happened, but only some of what happened.The Prime Minister promised to be different, so why is he not giving her free rein to speak her truth?
Mr. Speaker, the former minister of justice has let it be known that she is still being silenced by the Prime Minister regarding the conversations that occurred between her and the Prime Minister's Office prior to her decision to step down as veterans affairs minister.The Bob Fife story broke on February 7. On February 11, the Prime Minister said that her continued presence in cabinet was a sign that everything was hunky-dory. She quit the next day.We know she was under intense pressure in that period. The simple questions are these: Who spoke to her from the PMO? What was said? Why is the Prime Minister refusing to let her tell her whole story?
Mr. Speaker, throughout the byelection in Burnaby South, people made it clear to Jagmeet Singh that the Liberals only care about the wealthy and the well connected. Everyday Canadians are struggling to put food on the table. They cannot afford the medication that they need. While the Liberals will move heaven and earth to help the corporate elite, everyday Canadians are left behind. All Canadians deserve safe, affordable housing, public universal pharmacare and food on the table. No more delays. No more excuses. Will the Prime Minister put everyday Canadians first for a change, and make real investments in budget 2019 for the people who are most in need?
Mr. Speaker, the former attorney general of Canada will be testifying before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights this afternoon, but that does not mean that we will get the whole story. Any actions or communications involving her that occurred after January 14, the day she was shuffled to Veterans Affairs, are off limits. Allowing her to tell only half the story could leave us with more questions than answers.Why go to so much effort to control what she wants to say?Why not allow her to talk about stepping down from cabinet, for example?Is the Prime Minister's Office that afraid of what she has to say?
Mr. Speaker, in less than an hour, the former attorney general will be testifying before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Unfortunately, she will not be able to speak her full truth because the Prime Minister will not let her. We are not the ones saying this. It is the former attorney general herself who said it.However, the Prime Minister can reassure Canadians by answering a very simple question here in the House.Did anyone in the PMO or in a minister's office contact SNC-Lavalin representatives to assure them that they would not have to go to trial, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There seemed to have been some confusion on the Liberal side during question period. The Liberals seem to think that the allegations that were made today come from the Conservative side, but it is, in fact, from the former attorney general herself. I would ask for unanimous consent to table the letter that the former attorney general wrote to the justice committee, which indicates that the Prime Minister's actions fall short of what is required when it comes waiving privilege in this case.
Check the fine print, Mr. Speaker, because there is an important detail that the Prime Minister is leaving out. Something happened between the time the former attorney general lost her job for speaking truth to power until the day she resigned from cabinet that the Prime Minister is desperate to keep hidden from Canadians. Could the Prime Minister confirm that sometime in that period of time something was said to the former attorney general that proved she lost her job because she stood up to him?
Mr. Speaker, no one should be breaking the law to protect jobs.On December 19, the Prime Minister and his cabinet had lunch with the Clerk of the Privy Council. Later in the day, the clerk called the former attorney general to ask her to stop the trial. The Prime Minister, his chief of staff, his principal secretary and the Clerk of the Privy Council are all involved.What lawful authority did the Prime Minister have to instruct the clerk to put pressure on the former attorney general? Canadians want to know.
Mr. Speaker, for 10 years Canadians watched Stephen Harper and his Conservatives disrespect their institutions, play games with the rule of law, and meddle with the independence of the judiciary. They expect a government to stand up and defend our institutions, including one of the fundamental tenets of our justice system, which is solicitor-client privilege, and indeed a fundamental tenet of our government, which is cabinet confidentiality. When we made the decision to waive those elements so that the former attorney general can speak to this matter, that is a big deal.
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite obviously misunderstands what the order in council is all about. It is actually about waiving solicitor-client privilege and waiving cabinet confidentiality so that the former attorney general can speak to
Mr. Speaker, what our government has done every step of the way is stand up and defend workers and jobs in Quebec and across the country, and stand up for the companies and the work that Canadians do across the country.We will always stand up for Canadian jobs, while respecting the independence of our judicial system, our institutions, and the rule of law.That is what we have always done and that is what we will always do.
Mr. Speaker, no, not to our knowledge.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's order in council prevents the former attorney general from discussing her resignation from cabinet, the presentation that she gave to cabinet following her resignation and discussions that she had upon being fired as the Attorney General, all matters relevant to getting to the heart of the truth.Why is the Prime Minister trying to silence his former attorney general? What is he afraid of?
Mr. Speaker, former Ontario Liberal attorney general Michael Bryant stated that a crime may have been committed when the Prime Minister conspired to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with bribery. Legal experts, including a former judge, agree that a crime may have been committed and that the RCMP should investigate.I have a simple question requiring a simple answer. Has the Prime Minister, any former or current cabinet minister, or anyone in his office been contacted by the RCMP?
Mr. Speaker, that is what the Prime Minister would like Canadians to believe, but the facts tell otherwise. He is refusing to let his former attorney general share her entire story. Here is what she had to say yesterday, the Order in Council leaves in place whatever restraints there are on my ability to speak freely about matters that occurred after I left the post of Attorney General.What happened between the time she was removed as attorney general to the day that she resigned that the Prime Minister is so desperate to keep hidden?
Mr. Speaker, when the member opposite qualifies fundamental tenets of our justice system, of our cabinet government, as weasel words, we see the partisan political approach that he is desperate to take. On this side of the House, we respect our institutions, we respect the full integrity of our justice system and that is why we take very carefully and seriously the responsibility to defend those institutions and always will. That is why we took the important step of waiving in this matter the confidentiality.
Mr. Speaker, in just a moment, I will ask for the unanimous consent of the House, because the National Energy Board has once again failed in its duty regarding official languages. This is such a serious situation that I am sure you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House condemn the actions of the National Energy Board, which tabled its reconsideration report on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project in English only, and call on the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie to use her regulatory powers to ensure that all reports from federal agencies are systematically tabled in both official languages.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the former attorney general wrote to the chair of the justice committee to indicate that the Prime Minister's order in council falls short of what is required in terms of sharing all relevant information. The Prime Minister has just a little over an hour. If he truly has nothing to hide, then why will he not simply lift all solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality? What is he afraid of?
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the Prime Minister is aware that the former attorney general has written a letter to the justice committee explaining that the order in council that the Prime Minister keeps bragging about falls far short of what is required. She said: [It] does nothing to release me from any restrictions that apply to communications while I served as Minister of Veterans Affairs.... The letter goes on: [and it] leaves in place whatever restraints there are on my ability to speak freely about matters that occurred after I left the post of Attorney General. Why has the Prime Minister kept the restraints on the former attorney general unless he is afraid of what she is going to say?
Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, I stood in this House to raise the alarm on the increase in rejections of disability tax credit applications. It is a disturbing fact that there is a 60% increase in rejections. To make matters worse, Liberals have clawed back over $26 million from people with severe and prolonged impairments. They still have not fixed this problem. Liberals are clearly out of touch. What Canadians really want to know is how the Liberals could let this happen.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for MadawaskaRestigouche for his hard work on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Conservative politicians across the country are attacking the French fact in Canada, backed by the Conservative Party leader across the aisle. We will always stand up for minority language communities. I have asked the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie to review and modernize the Official Languages Act. Our goal is to ensure that the act responds to the challenges arising from the transformations that Canada has undergone and to always protect our official language minority communities.
Mr. Speaker, it is always we will, we will, we will.The Prime Minister has known for over a year now that SNC-Lavalin risks losing all government contracts if there is no remediation agreement. His inaction has cost SNC-Lavalin $1.6 billion over the past few months. Funds belonging to the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, the nest egg of Quebeckers, are at stake. His inaction could cost Quebec thousands of jobs and a head office. Why has the Prime Minister turned his back on the workers at SNC-Lavalin?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that if he had allowed SNC-Lavalin to face criminal conviction, the company would be banned from getting federal contracts and would go out of business.However, in December 2015 the government gave SNC-Lavalin a deal exempting it from the ban despite criminal charges. Now the government is changing the policy to exempt SNC-Lavalin even if it gets convicted.If the Prime Minister plans to allow SNC-Lavalin to get contracts even after a conviction, why did he need to intervene to stop the company from going to trial in the first place?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister conspired to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with bribery, and this is what the bribery looked like