2019-02-28

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and top PMO officials repeatedly allowed political considerations to trump the rule of law. Gerald Butts said, “there is no solution here that does not involve some interference.” Katie Telford said, “we don’t want to debate legalities anymore.” This is shocking. Canadians deserve to hear the full truth, so why does the Prime Minister not simply let her speak?

Mr. Speaker, does anyone still wonder why the Prime Minister made sure his last question period happened before the explosive testimony from the former attorney general? Because I do not. Then the Prime Minister had the audacity to tell Canadians that he rejected this damning and detailed testimony, and then admitted that he had not actually listened to it all. Talk about arrogance. Talk about tone deaf. She told us of a consistent and sustained effort to politically interfere in a public prosecution, and a B.C. Liberal said that this was all sour grapes and she just was not a good “team player”. I guess being a good team Liberal player means a willingness to break the law.When will they stop with the misogynistic smears and just agree to a public inquiry?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the former attorney general testified to the impact that the anonymous smear campaign had on her and her office, and we saw the Prime Minister come out and supposedly apologize for not speaking out sooner. Now the Liberal member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon is declaring that her statements yesterday were merely sour grapes and that her father was pulling her strings. What disrespect to the former attorney general. Is this the line of the Liberal Party? Will the Liberals apologize for these sexist, misogynist comments?

Mr. Speaker, here are the Liberal lines on the mountain of evidence that were presented yesterday by the former attorney general: Her dad is pulling her strings. Why didn't she say no more forcefully? Why didn't she report it sooner? She experienced it differently. Gaslighting a strong woman, especially one with a mountain of evidence, at the behest of the fake feminist who through his actions uses women instead of supporting them, sets women back. Why are not all women in that caucus, and their so-called feminist allies, calling for the Prime Minister's resignation?

Mr. Speaker, it is completely disgusting that the Prime Minister does not have the fortitude to answer these questions himself.Do we want to talk about respect for the rules? I will try another one on the Prime Minister. Gerald Butts, his principal secretary, said to the former attorney general that the statute was set up by Harper, but that he did not like the law. When the Liberals do not like the law, they try to break the law. The only job the Prime Minister was interested in protecting was his own.Does he deny that Gerald Butts said those words, yes or not?

Mr. Speaker, on that side no one is standing up for women. While Canadians are fighting for their jobs, the Prime Minister has been busy pressuring the former attorney general to break the law for his rich corporate friends. Imagine if the PMO put all those efforts into standing up for working people. Instead, he invested time and energy into pressuring the former AG to change her mind to help his rich corporate friends.This is about the choices the Liberals make. They will not fight for GM auto workers. They will not fight for steel and aluminum jobs and they failed Sears pensioners. Why will the Liberals not just admit that the middle class and those working hard to join it just do not matter to them?

Mr. Speaker, our government has led the world in creating a special program for Yazidi and other survivors of Daesh and in recognizing the genocide that was perpetrated against these communities. Even more so, countless Canadians and Londoners have welcomed victimized families and helped them find a new peace in Canada. Some Yazidi refugees have close family members that they would like to see join them in this country. Can the minister update the House on what the government is doing to facilitate family reunification for survivors of Daesh?

Mr. Speaker, the former attorney general gave a detailed and devastating account of a relentless campaign to try to force her to break the law. The Prime Minister first said that if the former attorney general had a problem, she should have complained. Well, she did, and the bullying and the pressure and the veiled threats got worse. Then he said that she just should have quit. Well, thank God that she did not, because when she was there, she was standing up for the rule of law. Yesterday, Canadians watched a fearless and courageous indigenous woman who stood up against the most powerful men in this country. When are the Liberals going to have even a scintilla of that courage to call for a full public inquiry?

Mr. Speaker, advice from my heart to my friends in the Liberal Party: do not dispute the truth of what our former minister of justice has said; do not attempt to question or undermine or impugn her integrity. No one will believe them if they do.What the Liberals must do is tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may, starting with these three steps: call for a public inquiry, release the former minister of justice from restrictions on her evidence and fire the Clerk of the Privy Council office.

Mr. Speaker, the former justice minister has revealed that the Prime Minister of Canada has coordinated a campaign of intimidation and interference against her to protect his partisan interests as the MP for Papineau. The finance minister attempted to interfere in the course of justice. The Clerk of the Privy Council delivered the threats. Gerry Butts and Katie Telford said that they were not interested in what was legal. The former justice minister referred to the Prime Minister as Richard Milhous Nixon.Will the Prime Minister stop the ongoing smears against her and call an independent inquiry?

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot today from the members opposite about letting the justice committee do its work, but the Liberals on the justice committee said it was a witch hunt. That is absolutely unacceptable. The Prime Minister put his re-election above the judicial system when he cited the Quebec election and that he was an MP from Quebec, when he pressured the former attorney general to drop the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. She said no. As the former Ontario Liberal attorney general has said, interfering with a criminal prosecution is what despots do. Why did the Prime Minister put his personal political interests ahead of the integrity of our government?

Mr. Speaker, we know that members of the justice committee are doing their job. They are calling witnesses, and witnesses are appearing and answering questions. We know that the Conservatives continue to talk out of both sides of their mouths. They say one thing in French and another in English.Canadians will have a choice to make between our plan to invest in our communities, grow our economy, and support middle-class jobs or the party of Stephen Harper that wants to divide Canadians and has no plan for the economy or jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the former attorney general confirmed yesterday that she was pressured by the offices of the Prime Minister, the Privy Council and the Minister of Finance to change her position on prosecuting SNC-Lavalin.The Prime Minister cannot continue to govern, plain and simple. Now that Canadians know what he did, he must resign. Will he do so?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians wanted to hear from the former attorney general, and Canadians got to hear from the former attorney general.We on this side have confidence in the work that committees do. We know that members of Parliament from both sides sit on that committee. They have been able to have meetings. They are calling witnesses. Witnesses are appearing and answering those questions.It is important that witnesses be able to share their perspectives. We on this side respect that. We on this side will fight for Canadian jobs.Perhaps if the Conservatives, rather than playing partisan politics, focused on creating growth, they would not have had the worst growth since the Great Depression.

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Canadians heard some very troubling testimony yesterday, which clearly showed that there was consistent and sustained pressure from the PMO and the Prime Minister to politically interfere in a criminal case.Upon reading the testimony, it is clear that we still do not have all of the information and that we are missing an important piece of the puzzle.When will the Prime Minister waive all his privileges and let Canadians hear the rest of this scandal?

Mr. Speaker, at the heart of the conversation on women's rights over the last year has been the need to believe women. Yesterday, the former attorney general presented evidence, texts and emails that show a campaign by the Prime Minister to intimidate her into politically influencing the outcome of a criminal corruption investigation. However, the Prime Minister is saying that we should not believe her or her evidence. Why is the Prime Minister telling Canadians that we should believe all women, except his accusers?

Mr. Speaker, people want the truth, the whole truth.After the former attorney general testified, the prime minister said that he disagreed with her testimony. Then he admitted that he did not even listen to all of it. He is changing his story again. Canadians want the truth and they deserve the truth from their Prime Minister. The question is very simple. We need a public inquiry into the wrongful pressure by the Prime Minister and his office.Will the Prime Minister agree to a public inquiry to shed light on this issue and to get the entire truth?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard explosive testimony from the former attorney general. It directly involved the Prime Minister of Canada, and Canadians still have not heard the whole story. The Prime Minister is not allowing the former attorney general to discuss anything that happened after she was removed from her role. Yesterday the Liberal majority on the justice committee voted no when I asked that she be able to tell us what happened after that date.Will the Prime Minister stop trying to save himself and remove the restrictions that he imposed on her so she can tell her entire story?

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will call on the 11 people mentioned in the former attorney general's testimony, and I hope that the Liberals will agree to let those 11 people appear. However, in response to the former attorney general's testimony, the Prime Minister said that he completely disagreed with her when she stated that Gerry Butts told her that there was no solution that did not involve some interference.Does that mean the Prime Minister is disputing what the former attorney general said?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will always stand up for Canadian workers and the importance of the rule of law. Prime ministers should fight for Canadian jobs.On this side, we respect the work of committees. We have confidence in our institutions, as all Canadians should.What is clear is that the Conservatives will continue their partisan ways. They will put politics ahead of Canadians. We will not do that on this side. We are fighting for Canadians and we see the results. We know that Canadians are better off today than they were under Stephen Harper's Conservatives. The Conservatives have chosen a new leader, but it remains Stephen Harper's party of austerity.

Mr. Speaker, on September 17, I left the Liberal Party because I lost confidence in the current Prime Minister. I know what it is like to trust the Prime Minister and have that trust broken. Canadians have had their trust in the Prime Minister broken. He has lost the moral authority to govern. Will the Prime Minister resign?

It is a feminist government, Mr. Speaker. I remember. It has now been established that the Prime Minister's Office repeatedly pressured the former attorney general. At least 11 individuals, including the Prime Minister himself, engaged her on the subject at least 20 times.Were they doing this for jobs? No. For the economy? No. The revolting answer is that they were doing it for themselves. They were doing it for the Liberal Party of Canada.Adviser Mathieu Bouchard and the Prime Minister made it clear that they were only doing this to get re-elected.Will the Prime Minister drop the spin and admit that the only job he wants to save in Quebec—

I only wish the NDP were as effective at building houses as they are at screaming.

Mr. Speaker, on this day last year, every single Liberal member voted against my motion to create a national plan to end and prevent homelessness. This week, they announced funding for urban and indigenous homelessness but have no idea where the money will go or when it will be spent. Instead of working on ending homelessness, the Prime Minister has been busy pressuring the former attorney general to break the law for his corporate friends. When will he finally turn his attention to the real issues facing Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, it is clear the current Prime Minister would go to the moon to avoid answering questions on this issue. In fact, he has so far refused to summon the courage that yesterday the former attorney general demonstrated when she came with copious notes, saved text messages and other documentary evidence proving the veracity of her comments. She exposed a pattern of systematic political interference by the Prime Minister in a criminal prosecution. Will he show the same courage and show up and answer under oath?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for London North Centre for his amazing advocacy on this issue. In fact, I joined him recently in London where we met members of the Yazidi community and we heard first-hand not only of their triumphs but also some of the challenges they continue to face. We are very proud on this side of the House to offer protection to over 1,400 survivors of Daesh atrocities. I am happy to update the House that our government has taken the extra step of extending the one-year window to allow more Yazidis to sponsor their family members. On this side of the House, instead of engaging in fearmongering, we will stand up—

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we, on this side of the House, have confidence in the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. They are doing their job. They are calling witnesses, and witnesses are appearing and answering questions.Members on both sides of the House sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We, on this side of the House, are letting those members do their job. However, the Conservatives obviously like to interfere. Nothing has changed since Stephen Harper's time.

Mr. Speaker, I have additional information for your consideration.What I observed to transpire at that meeting was that the Liberal members of the committee went down to the committee meeting, and it appeared to me that they were advised to leave the room so that quorum could not be obtained. I would ask you to look into this in great detail, because I would refute my colleague's assertion that this was done in good faith. I also would refute the assertion that the government members on the committee have the intent to proceed in an orderly fashion.The motion that was before the committee on which the government did proceed in this manner and subsequently adjourned the meeting was a motion to study the family reunification of the Yazidi victims of genocide. There were members of the community in the room, and they have observed this. I think that it is very important that we look at all the facts that occurred in this meeting, because, to me, it sets some very dangerous precedent in the ability of a chair to unilaterally end debate on a motion that the government members may or may not like.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to apologize, without reservation, to the member for Vancouver Granville. My comments were inappropriate. Whether inside or outside this House, it is incumbent on all of us to treat each other with respect at all times.

Mr. Speaker, these questions are for the Prime Minister and he should have the guts to stand and answer for himself.He stands accused of political interference in a criminal case. In one of those meetings, the Clerk of the Privy Council told the former attorney general that this was not about jobs, that this was about a shareholders' meeting that was happening the next Thursday, and that there was an election in Quebec soon.Once again, for the Prime Minister, did he hear those words spoken, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, we now know that the only job the Prime Minister was interested in protecting was his own. Yesterday's testimony revealed that the Prime Minister looked Canadians in the eyes and he said that the former attorney general had never raised concerns about his political interference. We now learn that she did raise her concerns in September.If the Prime Minister does believe that her testimony under oath is false, will he show up to committee to refute it?

Mr. Speaker, jobs? Job one of the Prime Minister is to be more ethical than Richard Nixon. Let us talk about the threats, like when Michael Wernick said that the Prime Minister “is going to find a way to get it done, one way or another. He is in that kind of mood, and I wanted you to be aware of it.” He further said that she did not want to be on a collision course with the Prime Minister. I asked her if she felt threatened. She said she was not threatened once in that meeting; she was threatened three times.It is not the role of the Clerk of the Privy Council to act as the personal goon of the Prime Minister. At the very least, will they call on Michael Wernick to step down today?

Mr. Speaker, our government will always stand up for Canadian workers and the importance of the rule of law.We have been clear since day one, when it comes to the work of committees, this is the government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, that increased resources to committees so they could do their work. They do very important work.The Conservatives will continue to undermine their work. The Conservatives are the party that has chosen a new leader, but it is clear that it remains the party of Stephen Harper. They put out a rule book to undermine and destroy the work of committees.We on this side will not do that. We will let the committees do their work. We will respect officers of Parliament as well.

Mr. Speaker, there is no place for misogyny or sexism. We know that is very much the case.I will remain focused on the issue. I can assure that member that we will look into this matter. We take it very seriously. I take it very seriously. The Prime Minister takes it very seriously.When it comes to the matter before us, if we remain focused on the issue, we know that the former attorney general was able to appear at committee. We know that the former attorney general stated that the Prime Minister told her that it was her decision to make. We know that the former attorney general stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts, and we know—

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard disturbing testimony from the former attorney general of a coordinated campaign directed by the Prime Minister to obstruct justice. The former attorney general stated that there were communications relevant to getting to the heart of the truth that she cannot speak of because the Prime Minister is silencing her. Enough is enough. It is time for the Prime Minister to immediately lift all solicitor-client privilege and all cabinet confidentiality. Why will he not?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for his passion for the health of Canadians. The answer is simple. The best way to fight measles is by getting the measles vaccination. Vaccines are one of the most powerful public health tools we have, and they are the reason measles was eliminated in Canada. Our government knows this, which is why we have committed $25 million over five years to get more Canadians vaccinated. The evidence is clear. Vaccines are safe and effective and save lives.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening, the NDP and the Conservatives cheered the former attorney general on as she settled scores with the Prime Minister's Office.Not many people seemed all that concerned about the real issue: Why did she decide to sacrifice thousands of jobs in Canada and Quebec for the sake of standing up to her leader?Now that the Liberals have made a huge mess of the SNC-Lavalin affair, what exactly is the government going to do to save the company's head office and the jobs of thousands of Quebeckers?

[Member spoke in Inuktitut][English]Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indigenous Services will be aware that in my riding of Nunavut, there is not one mental health and addictions treatment facility. The need for such a facility has been well documented and is exemplified by the highest rates of suicide in the nation and alcohol and drug addiction. The Government of Nunavut has recognized this need and has identified it as a priority. The previous minister stated in the House that she had heard the call for a treatment centre and looked forward to moving forward with this work. Will the minister commit to funding this much-needed centre?

Mr. Speaker, over the past two weeks, I have heard from several constituents concerned about the outbreak of measles in Alberta and British Columbia. While measles was eliminated in Canada over 20 years ago, we know that outbreaks sometimes do occur. I would like to ask the Minister of Health, what is the most effective way to fight measles?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister declared that the testimony of the former attorney general was false before he had even heard it or read it. Now the Liberal member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon is sullying the name of the member, saying that it is just sour grapes and that it is her father, a respected chief in British Columbia, who is pulling the strings. This is absolutely unacceptable. It is beneath a member of Parliament, who continues to laugh about this.Will the Prime Minister denounce it today?

Mr. Speaker, Canadian laws should apply to the Prime Minister just as they do to all Canadians, which means that “no” means “no” for this Prime Minister, just as it does for all Canadians. The former attorney general told the Prime Minister and his team no several times, but they refused to accept her response. When she refused to reverse her decision, the Prime Minister simply relieved her of her duties. Why would the Prime Minister not take “no” as the former attorney general's final answer?

Mr. Speaker, when the former attorney general resigned in protest of political interference, the Prime Minister said that he was “both surprised and disappointed by her decision to step down” and “she said nothing of that to me”. Yesterday, we learned that she said to him in September, “Are you politically interfering with my role, my decision as the Attorney-General? I would strongly advise against it.”Why did the Prime Minister tell Canadians the opposite of the truth?

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. Yesterday at the justice committee, the former attorney general stated that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. Yesterday at committee, the former attorney general confirmed that she had made up her mind. In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way.The job of any prime minister is to stand up for Canadians and Canadian workers. If the Conservatives spent half their time on Canadians rather than on partisan politics, perhaps their record would not show them having the worst growth since the Great Depression.

Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out to the member opposite. In my previous work, I worked extensively with people who are indigenous and who suffer from mental health and addictions every single day. We need to do more. That is why our government is working closely to close the gap between health services for indigenous people and non-indigenous people. To close that gap, we are investing in 52 new community-led mental wellness teams that are now serving over 344 communities.I will take the request from the member back to the new minister and make sure that he has an opportunity to meet with the member at his first availability.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister coordinated a sustained effort to politically interfere in a criminal prosecution. He pressured the former attorney general to end the trial of SNC-Lavalin for political reasons. She refused, but he would not take no for answer. As the clerk said to the former attorney general, the Prime Minister was going to “get it done, one way or another”. The Prime Minister has lost the moral authority to govern this country. When will he resign?

Mr. Speaker, it is important that Canadians be able to hear from witnesses, including the former attorney general. Members who sit on the justice committee work together, members from both sides, to ensure that witnesses are appearing. Witnesses are appearing and answering questions. Yesterday we heard the former attorney general confirm that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. The former attorney general stated it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I will be asking for the consent of the House in a moment as I need to give some context to the matter in question and underscore just how serious it is. There are confirmed reports that earlier this week, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek engaged in behaviour that could only be described as that of a bully toward a delegation of representatives from the United Steelworkers. There have been consultations among the parties and I believe that if you seek it, there would be unanimous consent for this motion. I move that the House condemn the inappropriate behaviour of the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, who, according to reports, during a meeting with a delegation of representatives from the United Steelworkers from Hamilton, Ontario, verbally abused the delegation; attempted to physically intimidate them by striking various pieces of furniture and violently slamming his office door; insulted and disparaged the organization, including the retirees of Stelco Inc., and expelled them from his office, and that the House call on the member to give a full and public apology for his unacceptable and unparliamentary behaviour.

Mr. Speaker, the illegal and unjust American tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum must be lifted. We are consistently sending this message to the United States, and it is being received.American legislators have asked Ambassador Lighthizer to lift these tariffs. Republican Kevin Brady recently said that the tariffs should be lifted. On Monday, I raised this issue directly with the Vice-President of the United States, Mike Pence.

It is obvious that the Prime Minister is choosing the truth he wants to hear.Since yesterday evening, the Minister of Infrastructure has been taking every opportunity to repeat that we must hear the testimony of the 11 other people named by the former attorney general. He said that those 11 people have things to say and that he wants to hear from them. We agree with the minister. Canadians have the right to hear those individuals' side of the Liberal scandal.Can the Prime Minister tell us today when we will hear his testimony, as well as the testimony of Gerald Butts, Katie Telford, Mathieu Bouchard and all of the others who applied consistent and sustained pressure on the former attorney general?

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are going to look at the facts. We believe that Canadians are capable of making up their own minds.The former attorney general stated that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. She also stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way. The job of any prime minister is to stand up for Canadians and Canadian workers.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with debate at third reading of Bill C-77, the victims bill of rights.Tomorrow we will debate Bill C-83, the administrative segregation legislation, at third reading.For the next two weeks, we will be working with our constituents in our ridings. Upon our return, Monday shall be an allotted day. Tuesday we will start report stage and third reading of Bill C-84, on animal cruelty. At 4 p.m. on Tuesday, the Minister of Finance will present budget 2019. Wednesday will be dedicated to the budget debate.

Mr. Speaker, once again for the record, the justice committee is meeting. It has called witnesses. Witnesses are appearing and answering questions. There was a time not too long ago that the opposition was denying that the committee would ever meet. The committee is meeting. They were denying that witnesses would appear. Witnesses are appearing, and they are answering. They were denying that the former attorney general would be invited. She was invited, and she appeared. They denied that the former attorney general would be able to share her perspective and share her side. She appeared yesterday and she shared it.She confirmed that the Prime Minister at every step told her it was her decision to take. In the end—

Mr. Speaker, we on this side know that it is never acceptable for such comments to occur. We on this side respect the work of committees. We on this side respect the work of officers of Parliament. We on this side respect the independence of our judicial system. We on this side recognize the importance of the issue. We recognize that it is important that Canadians get to hear all of the different perspectives. Committees are doing their work. Witnesses are appearing to answer those questions. We will not play the politics of division, as the Conservatives always continue to do.

Mr. Speaker, small businesses and workers in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean have been in limbo for months because of the steel and aluminum tariffs. The entire region is waiting for the Prime Minister to do something, but nothing is happening. I guess he is too busy putting pressure on the former attorney general instead of Trump.When friends of the party call, the Prime Minister always picks up. Workers, though, do not have a direct line to his office.Will the Prime Minister admit that he has never been on the side of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and that he works only for friends of the Liberal Party?

Mr. Speaker, it was important for Canadians that the former attorney general be able to speak openly before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.The members of that committee are doing their job. They are calling witnesses, and witnesses are appearing before the committee. We, on this side of the House, respect the work of the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We will not interfere, as the Conservatives like to do. We know that committees are capable of doing their job, and we have confidence in them.

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts.According to the former attorney general of Canada, the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. The former attorney general stated that staff in the Prime Minister's Office said they did not want to act inappropriately. The former attorney general stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the justice committee is looking at this file. We know that members from both sides of the aisle are working together to have witnesses appear. Witnesses are appearing and responding to questions. We also know that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is looking at this file.We, on this side, respect the work of officers of Parliament and we think the commissioner should do his work. We also know on this side that it is the job of any prime minister to defend Canadian jobs. There was a time that the NDP used to fight for jobs and workers. Obviously, those days are gone.That member talks about providing advice. Where was his advice in December 2018 when he was making accusations on—

Mr. Speaker, we know that the justice committee is looking at this file. Once again, it has continued to call witnesses. Members of Parliament from both sides of the aisle are working together to have those witnesses appear.Yesterday we heard from the former attorney general. She confirmed that the Prime Minister, at all instances, confirmed that it was her decision to take.We know that committees are doing their work. We also know that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is looking at this file. We also know that there are two ongoing court cases. We on this side respect the work of committees. We respect the work of officers of Parliament. We respect the independence of the judicial system.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the members of the justice committee are doing their work. We respect the work of the committee members.We know that the Ethics Commissioner is conducting an investigation and looking into this file. We know that the commissioner can do his work.We believe that we must have confidence in our institutions. We know that Canadians must also have confidence in our institutions.We will let them do their work.

Mr. Speaker, it was important for Canadians to hear from witnesses on this matter, including the former attorney general. We know the justice committee is doing its work. We on this side respect the work the committees do. That is exactly why this government increased resources for them. We also know the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is looking into this matter. We on this side respect our officers of Parliament.We also know that there are two ongoing court cases. We on this side respect the independence of our judicial system. That is unfortunately not the case for the Conservatives.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said all along that he and his staff acted appropriately and professionally. Yesterday, the former attorney general confirmed that the Prime Minister had said the decision was hers to make. The members who sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will do their job, and the Conservatives will continue playing politics instead of focusing on Canadian workers.All prime ministers must stand up for Canadian workers, which is what we are doing.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Prime Minister should not be hiding behind other members of his government. He should be answering these questions himself.We did hear from the former attorney general yesterday. Now we want to hear from the Prime Minister, the man who stands accused of major political interference in a criminal case.In one of the meetings between his staff and the former attorney general, Mathieu Bouchard said, “We can have the best policy in the world but we need to get re-elected.”Does the Prime Minister deny that those words were spoken, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, people were appalled at the former attorney general's account of the inappropriate pressure the Prime Minister himself and his staff subjected her to.The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the chief of staff, the principal secretary and seven other highly placed individuals put inappropriate, repeated and sustained pressure on the former attorney general. She repeatedly said no, and she was fired.How low will the Prime Minister go to get a good deal for wealthy friends of his with strong ties to the Liberal Party of Canada?

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be part of a government that has invested $5.7 billion in the national housing strategy. That money arrived in our first budget, and we are now spending $40 billion over the next 10 years. Every one of those programs is eligible to be subscribed to by indigenous groups across this country. In fact, the $13.2-billion co-investment fund is building real housing for real people, led by indigenous communities, as we speak. However, there is an additional program that was announced on top of that, which is a program to try to build more indigenous housing off reserve. That program is now financed and is delivering real housing for real people.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the member to have more regard and respect for the former attorney general's testimony yesterday. She confirmed that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. The former attorney general stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way.The job of any Prime Minister is to stand up for Canadians and Canadian workers and that is exactly what this Prime Minister did. We, on this side, have confidence in the work of committees. We know that witnesses will appear and—

Mr. Speaker, we, on this side, will remain focused on Canadians. The former attorney general stated that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. The former attorney general stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way and the former attorney general confirmed that.The job of any prime minister is to stand up for Canadians and Canadian workers. We, on this side, will keep investing in Canadians. We, on this side, will keep fighting for Canadian jobs. That is what a government does. That is what a prime minister does. It is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition does not understand that.

Mr. Speaker, I can say that I ran for the Liberal Party because this Prime Minister had a plan, a plan for the economy and a plan for kids. What is interesting is that every step of the way, the Conservatives voted against it. We brought forward the Canada child benefit, a tax-free benefit to help families with children who need it the most. This week it was confirmed that close to 300,000 children have been lifted out of poverty, and over 800,000 Canadians are benefiting from this program. The Conservatives voted against it every single time. Over 800,000 jobs have been created by Canadians because of our investment. The Conservatives—

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians were told by the former attorney general that on September 17, in relation to the SNC-Lavalin affair, the Prime Minister told her that there is an election in Quebec and that “I am an MP in Quebec, the member for Papineau.”Does the Prime Minister deny saying that?

Mr. Speaker, as was indicated in the House of Commons, the government's goal has been to allow the former minister to speak freely about the matters that relate to this issue that has been raised. The integrity of judicial proceedings is also a priority for our government. The waiver that has been provided does not cover any information shared by the director of public prosecutions with the former attorney general. That information is protected because two ongoing prosecutions are en route now.

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. Yesterday, the former attorney general stated that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. The former attorney general stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed at every step of the way. The job of any Prime Minister is to stand up for Canadians, Canadian workers and the rule of law. It was important for Canadians to hear the testimony of the former attorney general. Committee members made sure that happened. That member should stop putting words in other people's mouths.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear: they do not dispute it, they admit it. In her testimony, the former attorney general of Canada said, “Various officials urged me to take partisan political considerations into account, which it was clearly improper for me to do”. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he disputes her testimony?

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in this House, it was extremely important for the former attorney general to speak to the issues at hand. Waiver is an exceptional remedy, specifically when it relates to cabinet confidences and solicitor-client privilege. Every lawyer in this House who has a seat in the chamber knows that to be the case. The waiver was provided in this case so that the former attorney general could speak to this issue and address the concerns of not just parliamentarians but all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, he does not deny it. Clearly, the former attorney general is telling the truth.I have another question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the former attorney general also testified that Mathieu Bouchard, a senior adviser in the Prime Minister's Office, tried to pressure her in regard to the SNC-Lavalin deal by saying, “We can have the best policy in the world, but we need to get re-elected.” Again, does the Prime Minister deny that this was said?

Mr. Speaker, when members such as that member start mis-characterizing witness testimony, it actually takes away from the debate and the level of discourse in this place. We know that the former attorney general stated that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. We know that the former attorney general stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts.

Mr. Speaker, as we have always said, it was important for Canadians to be able to hear from witnesses, including the former attorney general. We know that the Prime Minister worked with the current Attorney General to ensure that we could waive solicitor-client privilege as well as cabinet confidence.Yesterday we saw that Canadians were able to hear directly from the former attorney general. Canadians are able to watch the justice committee look at this file, look at witnesses appearing and their answers. We recognize that the committee system is working, because even that member, yesterday, was given the opportunity to ask questions directly of the witness. We on this side have confidence in our institutions.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, in the House, as well as outside of the House, has said that it is important that Canadians be able to hear from witnesses, including the former attorney general. The Prime Minister worked with the current Attorney General to ensure that solicitor-client privilege could be waived as well as cabinet confidence.The former attorney general, yesterday in her testimony stated that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. The former attorney general stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts.In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way. Why can the member not accept that?

Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to the meeting held by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Monday, February 25.I understand that the Speaker does not normally become involved with committees, but there are occasions when the Speaker is obliged to intervene, and I will lay out why I believe this situation constitutes such an occasion.First, the Speaker may intervene in cases when committees adopt amendments to bills that go beyond the scope of the bill or require a royal recommendation. The Speaker may intervene as well when committees attempt to operate outside the authority granted to them by the House. My point of order relates to such an occasion.To cite precedent in support of my case, on June 20, 1994, and again on November 7, 1996, the Speaker ruled that: While it is a tradition of this House that committees are masters of their own proceedings, they cannot establish procedures which go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House. I would also refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Standing Order 116(1), which states: In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches. As such, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to examine the following situation and provide a ruling in the context of the two points I have just stated.The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Monday, February 25, was interrupted by votes. The chair suspended the meeting at this point in time. At the time of the suspension, a motion had been moved and was being debated. After, not prior to, gavelling the meeting suspended, the chair indicated that the committee would reconvene after the vote. When members returned to the committee room, we waited some time for the quorum to be met, which never occurred. Finally, the chair decided to leave the room without ever reconvening or ending the meeting.I assumed that the meeting would continue at our next scheduled meeting on Wednesday. Conservative members came to this meeting prepared to continue debate on the motion that was being discussed on Monday, given that the meeting was suspended. To our surprise, the chair informed us that the meeting on Monday had been adjourned, despite the suspended meeting never having been reconvened. I find this unilateral decision of the chair to adjourn a meeting outside a committee meeting and without the support of the committee members to be disturbing and in violation of the rules governing such meetings, and potentially a damaging precedent for future Parliaments.When the committee met again, Conservatives raised a point of order to ask that meeting number 145 continue, as it was suspended and not resumed, and that the member for Brandon—Souris be allowed to resume where he left off. When this request was denied, we challenged the chair's ruling. The ruling was sustained by Liberal members.While I appreciate that in upholding the ruling of the chair, the committee in effect made a decision and that in the normal course of things, it should be left at that. However, on the strength of the Standing Orders, the chair was prohibited from terminating debate, and a committee decision cannot override the House. As I pointed out earlier, committees cannot go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House, and in particular, the committee cannot override Standing Order 116(2).The committee's decision to support the chair's decision to adjourn the meeting outside of a duly called committee meeting without the consent of committee members was, in my view, an attempt to indirectly circumvent the relatively new rule found in subsection 2 of Standing Order 116. Standing Order 116(2) states: (a) Unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House, the Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee may not bring a debate to an end while there are members present who still wish to participate. A decision of the Chair in this regard may not be subject to an appeal to the committee. (b) A violation of paragraph (a) of this section may be brought to the attention of the Speaker by any Member and the Speaker shall have the power to rule on the matter. If, in the opinion of the Speaker, such violation has occurred, the Speaker may order that all subsequent proceedings in relation to the said violation be nullified. The committee brought the debate to an end while the member for Brandon—Souris still had the floor and wanted to continue his remarks, a clear violation of Standing Order 116(2).In addition, I would also argue that the Chair did not have the right to unilaterally adjourn Monday's meeting outside of a duly called committee meeting.To first prove this point, I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to rules pertaining to quorum. With respect to quorum, the rules governing the House are covered in chapter 9 in Bosc and Gagnon. At page 401, it states: If fewer than 20 Members are present, the Speaker may adjourn the House until the next sitting day. The Speaker may take such an initiative only until the moment when he House is called to order; once the sitting has begun, “control over the competence of the House is transferred from the Speaker to the House itself...the Speaker has no right to close a sitting at his own discretion”. Pages 402 and 403 refer to the business before the House at the time quorum was lost. However, should the House adjourn for lack of quorum, any Order of the Day under consideration at the time, with the exception of non-votable items of Private Members’ Business, retains its precedence on the Order Paper for the next sitting. The lack of quorum means only that the House adjourns for the day. I would also argue that the chair of the standing committee went beyond his authority and breached the rules laid down by the House on a number of fronts, specifically the rules respecting the role of the chair and the business before the committee in the absence of quorum and the attempt to circumvent Standing Order 116(2)(a). While the chair of the committee has implied consent to adjourn a meeting and if there is a loss of quorum during the sitting of a meeting, then a meeting can be adjourned. However, if a chair suspends a meeting, then the meeting must reconvene to then adjourn. The chair should not and cannot adjourn a meeting that he has suspended on his own. When committee members questioned him about this on Wednesday, he attempted to quote precedent to justify his decision. However, he falsely quoted precedent. The instance he cited was an instance in which a committee was adjourned through all-party agreement between whips and House leaders on the last day of a sitting that was then prorogued and therefore was in no way congruent to the situation currently at hand. In conclusion, the chair had no right to adjourn a meeting that had never started without the consent of the members, and he had no right to effectively terminate debate on a motion when there were members wishing to participate in said debate. Should this decision of the chair be allowed to stand, it could have very serious consequences on the future democratic nature of committees.I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you nullify all business of the committee that was conducted after the suspension of said meeting and allow the member for Brandon—Souris to continue debating the motion where he left off.

Mr. Speaker, it was extremely important for the former attorney general to come to the committee and to share her views on this important issue. The waiver of cabinet confidences and of solicitor-client privilege is an exceptional form of relief, and it was provided here because all Canadians needed to hear the former attorney general speak to this important issue.We want to assure Canadians that they are getting the answers to the information they are seeking. It is important for Canadians to hear the diverse perspectives on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, it was important for Canadians that the former attorney general be able to speak openly at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Yesterday we heard from the former attorney general. She confirmed that the Prime Minister told her that it was her decision to take.In the end, the former attorney general decided not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way. Every prime minister has a duty to stand up for Canadians, including workers. That is exactly what we are doing on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side have confidence that the justice committee will have witnesses appear. Witnesses are appearing. They are answering questions. We on this side have confidence that it will be able to do that work. We on this side also know that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is looking into this matter. We have confidence in our officers of Parliament. We also know that there are two ongoing court cases. We on this side have respect and confidence in the independence of the judicial system.

Mr. Speaker, the justice committee is looking at this file. We on this side of the House respect the work of committees and that is why we increased resources for committees so that they could do their important work. There was a time when that member used to respect the work of committees in this place and our institutions. We also know that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is looking at this file. We have confidence in our officers of Parliament, as all members should and all Canadians as well. There are two court cases proceeding. We on this side have respect for the independence of the judicial system, as I would encourage all members to as well.

Mr. Speaker, there is a clear difference between the way this Prime Minister and our government governs versus the approach of the previous government. We on this side respect the work of committees. We on this side respect the work of officers of Parliament. We on this side respect the independence of the judicial system. The justice committee members have asked for witnesses to appear. Witnesses are appearing and they are providing answers. It was important for Canadians that the former attorney general be able to speak openly at the justice committee. The Prime Minister worked with the current Attorney General to ensure that solicitor-client privilege would be waived, as well as cabinet confidence.

Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Prime Minister and he should have the decency to answer for himself.The Prime Minister says that there is a difference of opinion. I will ask him a very specific question. In a meeting with the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister, the former attorney general said that the clerk indicated that they had to find a solution quickly because “There is a board meeting on Thursday...with stockholders.”Does the Prime Minister deny that these words were spoken, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, Canada has made major contributions to space science and technology, such as satellite communications technology, the Canadarm and satellites in space. When we invest in science, innovation and research, we foster economic growth, create thousands of jobs for Canadian workers and gain a better understanding of our world. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development tell us a bit more about this?

Mr. Speaker, what we know is that the justice committee is doing its work. The justice committee is actually having witnesses appear and answer those questions.We also know that the former attorney general confirmed that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. We also know that the former attorney general confirmed that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. We also know that the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. We also know that the law was followed at every step.The job of any prime minister is to stand up for Canadians and Canadian workers. That is exactly what we do on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I very much welcome your wisdom on this matter. The decisions that I took were very much done in consultation with the clerk of the committee and very much done with reference to the Standing Orders, some of which were referred to by the previous speaker and some of which were not. It was done very much in conversation with the table officers, who helped us through this decision. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I welcome your ruling on this when it is appropriate for you to do so, and that will help our committee to continue its work, which it has always meant to do in good faith.It can be assumed that when our committee lost quorum, we would obviously have wanted to continue, but the suspension of the meeting was based on a precedent from 2013 and deemed adjourned, so our meeting could go on. The committee was advised at the subsequent meeting that they could resume that debate based on a motion to change the agenda for that committee, and that would have been a non-debatable motion; however, it was not moved.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been clear since the beginning that he and his staff always acted appropriately and professionally. It was important for Canadians to be able to hear from the former attorney general. The members of the justice committee have been working together, members from both sides, to have witnesses appear. Witnesses are appearing. They are answering those questions. Canadians are able to hear that testimony and it is important that they do.Our government will always focus on jobs, growing the middle class and strengthening our economy. There were, of course, discussions about the potential loss of 9,000 jobs in communities across the country, including a possible impact on pensions. It is a job of—

Mr. Speaker, the former attorney general stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed at every step of the way.The job of any prime minister is to stand up for Canadians and Canadian workers. That is exactly what we do on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the government House leader to let us know what we might be doing when we return. We are very concerned with some of the things that are happening and we would like to get some clarity on what is going to be happening the rest of this week and the week we return.

Mr. Speaker, from the beginning, the Prime Minister has said that he and his staff acted appropriately and professionally. We will always focus on jobs, the middle class and the economy.There were, of course, discussions about the potential loss of 9,000 jobs across the country, including a possible impact on pensions.The job of any prime minister is to stand up for Canadians. That is exactly what our government and our Prime Minister will do.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from Brossard—Saint-Lambert for her excellent question.This morning, the Prime Minister was in Saint-Hubert to announce an investment of more than $2 billion in Canada's space program. This historic investment is part of Canada's new partnership in the Lunar Gateway project.This NASA-led project will make it possible to return to the moon and to prepare for more thorough exploration of Mars. This partnership provides new opportunities for our astronauts to participate in space missions and for our scientists to conduct groundbreaking research. Our investments will create hundreds of well-paid jobs and make it possible for Canadian explorers—

Mr. Speaker, on September 17, I left the Liberal Party because I lost confidence in the current Prime Minister. I know what it is like to trust the Prime Minister and have that trust broken. Canadians have had their trust in the Prime Minister broken. He has lost the moral authority to govern. Will the Prime Minister resign?

Mr. Speaker, it is completely disgusting that the Prime Minister does not have the fortitude to answer these questions himself.Do we want to talk about respect for the rules? I will try another one on the Prime Minister. Gerald Butts, his principal secretary, said to the former attorney general that the statute was set up by Harper, but that he did not like the law. When the Liberals do not like the law, they try to break the law. The only job the Prime Minister was interested in protecting was his own.Does he deny that Gerald Butts said those words, yes or not?

Mr. Speaker, these questions are for the Prime Minister and he should have the guts to stand and answer for himself.He stands accused of political interference in a criminal case. In one of those meetings, the Clerk of the Privy Council told the former attorney general that this was not about jobs, that this was about a shareholders' meeting that was happening the next Thursday, and that there was an election in Quebec soon.Once again, for the Prime Minister, did he hear those words spoken, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, at the heart of the conversation on women's rights over the last year has been the need to believe women. Yesterday, the former attorney general presented evidence, texts and emails that show a campaign by the Prime Minister to intimidate her into politically influencing the outcome of a criminal corruption investigation. However, the Prime Minister is saying that we should not believe her or her evidence. Why is the Prime Minister telling Canadians that we should believe all women, except his accusers?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to apologize, without reservation, to the member for Vancouver Granville. My comments were inappropriate. Whether inside or outside this House, it is incumbent on all of us to treat each other with respect at all times.

It is a feminist government, Mr. Speaker. I remember. It has now been established that the Prime Minister's Office repeatedly pressured the former attorney general. At least 11 individuals, including the Prime Minister himself, engaged her on the subject at least 20 times.Were they doing this for jobs? No. For the economy? No. The revolting answer is that they were doing it for themselves. They were doing it for the Liberal Party of Canada.Adviser Mathieu Bouchard and the Prime Minister made it clear that they were only doing this to get re-elected.Will the Prime Minister drop the spin and admit that the only job he wants to save in Quebec—

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot today from the members opposite about letting the justice committee do its work, but the Liberals on the justice committee said it was a witch hunt. That is absolutely unacceptable. The Prime Minister put his re-election above the judicial system when he cited the Quebec election and that he was an MP from Quebec, when he pressured the former attorney general to drop the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. She said no. As the former Ontario Liberal attorney general has said, interfering with a criminal prosecution is what despots do. Why did the Prime Minister put his personal political interests ahead of the integrity of our government?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister coordinated a sustained effort to politically interfere in a criminal prosecution. He pressured the former attorney general to end the trial of SNC-Lavalin for political reasons. She refused, but he would not take no for answer. As the clerk said to the former attorney general, the Prime Minister was going to “get it done, one way or another”. The Prime Minister has lost the moral authority to govern this country. When will he resign?

Mr. Speaker, when the former attorney general resigned in protest of political interference, the Prime Minister said that he was “both surprised and disappointed by her decision to step down” and “she said nothing of that to me”. Yesterday, we learned that she said to him in September, “Are you politically interfering with my role, my decision as the Attorney-General? I would strongly advise against it.”Why did the Prime Minister tell Canadians the opposite of the truth?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and top PMO officials repeatedly allowed political considerations to trump the rule of law. Gerald Butts said, “there is no solution here that does not involve some interference.” Katie Telford said, “we don’t want to debate legalities anymore.” This is shocking. Canadians deserve to hear the full truth, so why does the Prime Minister not simply let her speak?

Mr. Speaker, the illegal and unjust American tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum must be lifted. We are consistently sending this message to the United States, and it is being received.American legislators have asked Ambassador Lighthizer to lift these tariffs. Republican Kevin Brady recently said that the tariffs should be lifted. On Monday, I raised this issue directly with the Vice-President of the United States, Mike Pence.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear the current Prime Minister would go to the moon to avoid answering questions on this issue. In fact, he has so far refused to summon the courage that yesterday the former attorney general demonstrated when she came with copious notes, saved text messages and other documentary evidence proving the veracity of her comments. She exposed a pattern of systematic political interference by the Prime Minister in a criminal prosecution. Will he show the same courage and show up and answer under oath?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the former attorney general testified to the impact that the anonymous smear campaign had on her and her office, and we saw the Prime Minister come out and supposedly apologize for not speaking out sooner. Now the Liberal member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon is declaring that her statements yesterday were merely sour grapes and that her father was pulling her strings. What disrespect to the former attorney general. Is this the line of the Liberal Party? Will the Liberals apologize for these sexist, misogynist comments?

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will call on the 11 people mentioned in the former attorney general's testimony, and I hope that the Liberals will agree to let those 11 people appear. However, in response to the former attorney general's testimony, the Prime Minister said that he completely disagreed with her when she stated that Gerry Butts told her that there was no solution that did not involve some interference.Does that mean the Prime Minister is disputing what the former attorney general said?

[Member spoke in Inuktitut][English]Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indigenous Services will be aware that in my riding of Nunavut, there is not one mental health and addictions treatment facility. The need for such a facility has been well documented and is exemplified by the highest rates of suicide in the nation and alcohol and drug addiction. The Government of Nunavut has recognized this need and has identified it as a priority. The previous minister stated in the House that she had heard the call for a treatment centre and looked forward to moving forward with this work. Will the minister commit to funding this much-needed centre?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister declared that the testimony of the former attorney general was false before he had even heard it or read it. Now the Liberal member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon is sullying the name of the member, saying that it is just sour grapes and that it is her father, a respected chief in British Columbia, who is pulling the strings. This is absolutely unacceptable. It is beneath a member of Parliament, who continues to laugh about this.Will the Prime Minister denounce it today?

Mr. Speaker, we know that the justice committee is looking at this file. We know that members from both sides of the aisle are working together to have witnesses appear. Witnesses are appearing and responding to questions. We also know that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is looking at this file.We, on this side, respect the work of officers of Parliament and we think the commissioner should do his work. We also know on this side that it is the job of any prime minister to defend Canadian jobs. There was a time that the NDP used to fight for jobs and workers. Obviously, those days are gone.That member talks about providing advice. Where was his advice in December 2018 when he was making accusations on—

Mr. Speaker, we know that the members of the justice committee are doing their work. We respect the work of the committee members.We know that the Ethics Commissioner is conducting an investigation and looking into this file. We know that the commissioner can do his work.We believe that we must have confidence in our institutions. We know that Canadians must also have confidence in our institutions.We will let them do their work.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we, on this side of the House, have confidence in the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. They are doing their job. They are calling witnesses, and witnesses are appearing and answering questions.Members on both sides of the House sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We, on this side of the House, are letting those members do their job. However, the Conservatives obviously like to interfere. Nothing has changed since Stephen Harper's time.

Mr. Speaker, advice from my heart to my friends in the Liberal Party: do not dispute the truth of what our former minister of justice has said; do not attempt to question or undermine or impugn her integrity. No one will believe them if they do.What the Liberals must do is tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may, starting with these three steps: call for a public inquiry, release the former minister of justice from restrictions on her evidence and fire the Clerk of the Privy Council office.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with debate at third reading of Bill C-77, the victims bill of rights.Tomorrow we will debate Bill C-83, the administrative segregation legislation, at third reading.For the next two weeks, we will be working with our constituents in our ridings. Upon our return, Monday shall be an allotted day. Tuesday we will start report stage and third reading of Bill C-84, on animal cruelty. At 4 p.m. on Tuesday, the Minister of Finance will present budget 2019. Wednesday will be dedicated to the budget debate.

Mr. Speaker, small businesses and workers in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean have been in limbo for months because of the steel and aluminum tariffs. The entire region is waiting for the Prime Minister to do something, but nothing is happening. I guess he is too busy putting pressure on the former attorney general instead of Trump.When friends of the party call, the Prime Minister always picks up. Workers, though, do not have a direct line to his office.Will the Prime Minister admit that he has never been on the side of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and that he works only for friends of the Liberal Party?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard disturbing testimony from the former attorney general of a coordinated campaign directed by the Prime Minister to obstruct justice. The former attorney general stated that there were communications relevant to getting to the heart of the truth that she cannot speak of because the Prime Minister is silencing her. Enough is enough. It is time for the Prime Minister to immediately lift all solicitor-client privilege and all cabinet confidentiality. Why will he not?

Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to the meeting held by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Monday, February 25.I understand that the Speaker does not normally become involved with committees, but there are occasions when the Speaker is obliged to intervene, and I will lay out why I believe this situation constitutes such an occasion.First, the Speaker may intervene in cases when committees adopt amendments to bills that go beyond the scope of the bill or require a royal recommendation. The Speaker may intervene as well when committees attempt to operate outside the authority granted to them by the House. My point of order relates to such an occasion.To cite precedent in support of my case, on June 20, 1994, and again on November 7, 1996, the Speaker ruled that: While it is a tradition of this House that committees are masters of their own proceedings, they cannot establish procedures which go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House. I would also refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Standing Order 116(1), which states: In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches. As such, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to examine the following situation and provide a ruling in the context of the two points I have just stated.The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Monday, February 25, was interrupted by votes. The chair suspended the meeting at this point in time. At the time of the suspension, a motion had been moved and was being debated. After, not prior to, gavelling the meeting suspended, the chair indicated that the committee would reconvene after the vote. When members returned to the committee room, we waited some time for the quorum to be met, which never occurred. Finally, the chair decided to leave the room without ever reconvening or ending the meeting.I assumed that the meeting would continue at our next scheduled meeting on Wednesday. Conservative members came to this meeting prepared to continue debate on the motion that was being discussed on Monday, given that the meeting was suspended. To our surprise, the chair informed us that the meeting on Monday had been adjourned, despite the suspended meeting never having been reconvened. I find this unilateral decision of the chair to adjourn a meeting outside a committee meeting and without the support of the committee members to be disturbing and in violation of the rules governing such meetings, and potentially a damaging precedent for future Parliaments.When the committee met again, Conservatives raised a point of order to ask that meeting number 145 continue, as it was suspended and not resumed, and that the member for Brandon—Souris be allowed to resume where he left off. When this request was denied, we challenged the chair's ruling. The ruling was sustained by Liberal members.While I appreciate that in upholding the ruling of the chair, the committee in effect made a decision and that in the normal course of things, it should be left at that. However, on the strength of the Standing Orders, the chair was prohibited from terminating debate, and a committee decision cannot override the House. As I pointed out earlier, committees cannot go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House, and in particular, the committee cannot override Standing Order 116(2).The committee's decision to support the chair's decision to adjourn the meeting outside of a duly called committee meeting without the consent of committee members was, in my view, an attempt to indirectly circumvent the relatively new rule found in subsection 2 of Standing Order 116. Standing Order 116(2) states: (a) Unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House, the Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee may not bring a debate to an end while there are members present who still wish to participate. A decision of the Chair in this regard may not be subject to an appeal to the committee. (b) A violation of paragraph (a) of this section may be brought to the attention of the Speaker by any Member and the Speaker shall have the power to rule on the matter. If, in the opinion of the Speaker, such violation has occurred, the Speaker may order that all subsequent proceedings in relation to the said violation be nullified. The committee brought the debate to an end while the member for Brandon—Souris still had the floor and wanted to continue his remarks, a clear violation of Standing Order 116(2).In addition, I would also argue that the Chair did not have the right to unilaterally adjourn Monday's meeting outside of a duly called committee meeting.To first prove this point, I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to rules pertaining to quorum. With respect to quorum, the rules governing the House are covered in chapter 9 in Bosc and Gagnon. At page 401, it states: If fewer than 20 Members are present, the Speaker may adjourn the House until the next sitting day. The Speaker may take such an initiative only until the moment when he House is called to order; once the sitting has begun, “control over the competence of the House is transferred from the Speaker to the House itself...the Speaker has no right to close a sitting at his own discretion”. Pages 402 and 403 refer to the business before the House at the time quorum was lost. However, should the House adjourn for lack of quorum, any Order of the Day under consideration at the time, with the exception of non-votable items of Private Members’ Business, retains its precedence on the Order Paper for the next sitting. The lack of quorum means only that the House adjourns for the day. I would also argue that the chair of the standing committee went beyond his authority and breached the rules laid down by the House on a number of fronts, specifically the rules respecting the role of the chair and the business before the committee in the absence of quorum and the attempt to circumvent Standing Order 116(2)(a). While the chair of the committee has implied consent to adjourn a meeting and if there is a loss of quorum during the sitting of a meeting, then a meeting can be adjourned. However, if a chair suspends a meeting, then the meeting must reconvene to then adjourn. The chair should not and cannot adjourn a meeting that he has suspended on his own. When committee members questioned him about this on Wednesday, he attempted to quote precedent to justify his decision. However, he falsely quoted precedent. The instance he cited was an instance in which a committee was adjourned through all-party agreement between whips and House leaders on the last day of a sitting that was then prorogued and therefore was in no way congruent to the situation currently at hand. In conclusion, the chair had no right to adjourn a meeting that had never started without the consent of the members, and he had no right to effectively terminate debate on a motion when there were members wishing to participate in said debate. Should this decision of the chair be allowed to stand, it could have very serious consequences on the future democratic nature of committees.I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you nullify all business of the committee that was conducted after the suspension of said meeting and allow the member for Brandon—Souris to continue debating the motion where he left off.

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. Yesterday at the justice committee, the former attorney general stated that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. Yesterday at committee, the former attorney general confirmed that she had made up her mind. In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way.The job of any prime minister is to stand up for Canadians and Canadian workers. If the Conservatives spent half their time on Canadians rather than on partisan politics, perhaps their record would not show them having the worst growth since the Great Depression.

Mr. Speaker, on that side no one is standing up for women. While Canadians are fighting for their jobs, the Prime Minister has been busy pressuring the former attorney general to break the law for his rich corporate friends. Imagine if the PMO put all those efforts into standing up for working people. Instead, he invested time and energy into pressuring the former AG to change her mind to help his rich corporate friends.This is about the choices the Liberals make. They will not fight for GM auto workers. They will not fight for steel and aluminum jobs and they failed Sears pensioners. Why will the Liberals not just admit that the middle class and those working hard to join it just do not matter to them?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I will be asking for the consent of the House in a moment as I need to give some context to the matter in question and underscore just how serious it is. There are confirmed reports that earlier this week, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek engaged in behaviour that could only be described as that of a bully toward a delegation of representatives from the United Steelworkers. There have been consultations among the parties and I believe that if you seek it, there would be unanimous consent for this motion. I move that the House condemn the inappropriate behaviour of the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, who, according to reports, during a meeting with a delegation of representatives from the United Steelworkers from Hamilton, Ontario, verbally abused the delegation; attempted to physically intimidate them by striking various pieces of furniture and violently slamming his office door; insulted and disparaged the organization, including the retirees of Stelco Inc., and expelled them from his office, and that the House call on the member to give a full and public apology for his unacceptable and unparliamentary behaviour.

Mr. Speaker, Canadian laws should apply to the Prime Minister just as they do to all Canadians, which means that “no” means “no” for this Prime Minister, just as it does for all Canadians. The former attorney general told the Prime Minister and his team no several times, but they refused to accept her response. When she refused to reverse her decision, the Prime Minister simply relieved her of her duties. Why would the Prime Minister not take “no” as the former attorney general's final answer?

Mr. Speaker, the former justice minister has revealed that the Prime Minister of Canada has coordinated a campaign of intimidation and interference against her to protect his partisan interests as the MP for Papineau. The finance minister attempted to interfere in the course of justice. The Clerk of the Privy Council delivered the threats. Gerry Butts and Katie Telford said that they were not interested in what was legal. The former justice minister referred to the Prime Minister as Richard Milhous Nixon.Will the Prime Minister stop the ongoing smears against her and call an independent inquiry?

Mr. Speaker, the former attorney general gave a detailed and devastating account of a relentless campaign to try to force her to break the law. The Prime Minister first said that if the former attorney general had a problem, she should have complained. Well, she did, and the bullying and the pressure and the veiled threats got worse. Then he said that she just should have quit. Well, thank God that she did not, because when she was there, she was standing up for the rule of law. Yesterday, Canadians watched a fearless and courageous indigenous woman who stood up against the most powerful men in this country. When are the Liberals going to have even a scintilla of that courage to call for a full public inquiry?

Mr. Speaker, on this day last year, every single Liberal member voted against my motion to create a national plan to end and prevent homelessness. This week, they announced funding for urban and indigenous homelessness but have no idea where the money will go or when it will be spent. Instead of working on ending homelessness, the Prime Minister has been busy pressuring the former attorney general to break the law for his corporate friends. When will he finally turn his attention to the real issues facing Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Prime Minister should not be hiding behind other members of his government. He should be answering these questions himself.We did hear from the former attorney general yesterday. Now we want to hear from the Prime Minister, the man who stands accused of major political interference in a criminal case.In one of the meetings between his staff and the former attorney general, Mathieu Bouchard said, “We can have the best policy in the world but we need to get re-elected.”Does the Prime Minister deny that those words were spoken, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians were told by the former attorney general that on September 17, in relation to the SNC-Lavalin affair, the Prime Minister told her that there is an election in Quebec and that “I am an MP in Quebec, the member for Papineau.”Does the Prime Minister deny saying that?

Mr. Speaker, it is clear: they do not dispute it, they admit it. In her testimony, the former attorney general of Canada said, “Various officials urged me to take partisan political considerations into account, which it was clearly improper for me to do”. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he disputes her testimony?

Mr. Speaker, the former attorney general confirmed yesterday that she was pressured by the offices of the Prime Minister, the Privy Council and the Minister of Finance to change her position on prosecuting SNC-Lavalin.The Prime Minister cannot continue to govern, plain and simple. Now that Canadians know what he did, he must resign. Will he do so?

Mr. Speaker, we, on this side, will remain focused on Canadians. The former attorney general stated that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. The former attorney general stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way and the former attorney general confirmed that.The job of any prime minister is to stand up for Canadians and Canadian workers. We, on this side, will keep investing in Canadians. We, on this side, will keep fighting for Canadian jobs. That is what a government does. That is what a prime minister does. It is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition does not understand that.

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Canadians heard some very troubling testimony yesterday, which clearly showed that there was consistent and sustained pressure from the PMO and the Prime Minister to politically interfere in a criminal case.Upon reading the testimony, it is clear that we still do not have all of the information and that we are missing an important piece of the puzzle.When will the Prime Minister waive all his privileges and let Canadians hear the rest of this scandal?

Mr. Speaker, there is no place for misogyny or sexism. We know that is very much the case.I will remain focused on the issue. I can assure that member that we will look into this matter. We take it very seriously. I take it very seriously. The Prime Minister takes it very seriously.When it comes to the matter before us, if we remain focused on the issue, we know that the former attorney general was able to appear at committee. We know that the former attorney general stated that the Prime Minister told her that it was her decision to make. We know that the former attorney general stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts, and we know—

Mr. Speaker, we now know that the only job the Prime Minister was interested in protecting was his own. Yesterday's testimony revealed that the Prime Minister looked Canadians in the eyes and he said that the former attorney general had never raised concerns about his political interference. We now learn that she did raise her concerns in September.If the Prime Minister does believe that her testimony under oath is false, will he show up to committee to refute it?

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts.According to the former attorney general of Canada, the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. The former attorney general stated that staff in the Prime Minister's Office said they did not want to act inappropriately. The former attorney general stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way.

Mr. Speaker, here are the Liberal lines on the mountain of evidence that were presented yesterday by the former attorney general: Her dad is pulling her strings. Why didn't she say no more forcefully? Why didn't she report it sooner? She experienced it differently. Gaslighting a strong woman, especially one with a mountain of evidence, at the behest of the fake feminist who through his actions uses women instead of supporting them, sets women back. Why are not all women in that caucus, and their so-called feminist allies, calling for the Prime Minister's resignation?

Mr. Speaker, people want the truth, the whole truth.After the former attorney general testified, the prime minister said that he disagreed with her testimony. Then he admitted that he did not even listen to all of it. He is changing his story again. Canadians want the truth and they deserve the truth from their Prime Minister. The question is very simple. We need a public inquiry into the wrongful pressure by the Prime Minister and his office.Will the Prime Minister agree to a public inquiry to shed light on this issue and to get the entire truth?

Mr. Speaker, I have additional information for your consideration.What I observed to transpire at that meeting was that the Liberal members of the committee went down to the committee meeting, and it appeared to me that they were advised to leave the room so that quorum could not be obtained. I would ask you to look into this in great detail, because I would refute my colleague's assertion that this was done in good faith. I also would refute the assertion that the government members on the committee have the intent to proceed in an orderly fashion.The motion that was before the committee on which the government did proceed in this manner and subsequently adjourned the meeting was a motion to study the family reunification of the Yazidi victims of genocide. There were members of the community in the room, and they have observed this. I think that it is very important that we look at all the facts that occurred in this meeting, because, to me, it sets some very dangerous precedent in the ability of a chair to unilaterally end debate on a motion that the government members may or may not like.

Mr. Speaker, when members such as that member start mis-characterizing witness testimony, it actually takes away from the debate and the level of discourse in this place. We know that the former attorney general stated that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. We know that the former attorney general stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, people were appalled at the former attorney general's account of the inappropriate pressure the Prime Minister himself and his staff subjected her to.The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the chief of staff, the principal secretary and seven other highly placed individuals put inappropriate, repeated and sustained pressure on the former attorney general. She repeatedly said no, and she was fired.How low will the Prime Minister go to get a good deal for wealthy friends of his with strong ties to the Liberal Party of Canada?

Mr. Speaker, as was indicated in the House of Commons, the government's goal has been to allow the former minister to speak freely about the matters that relate to this issue that has been raised. The integrity of judicial proceedings is also a priority for our government. The waiver that has been provided does not cover any information shared by the director of public prosecutions with the former attorney general. That information is protected because two ongoing prosecutions are en route now.

Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out to the member opposite. In my previous work, I worked extensively with people who are indigenous and who suffer from mental health and addictions every single day. We need to do more. That is why our government is working closely to close the gap between health services for indigenous people and non-indigenous people. To close that gap, we are investing in 52 new community-led mental wellness teams that are now serving over 344 communities.I will take the request from the member back to the new minister and make sure that he has an opportunity to meet with the member at his first availability.

It is obvious that the Prime Minister is choosing the truth he wants to hear.Since yesterday evening, the Minister of Infrastructure has been taking every opportunity to repeat that we must hear the testimony of the 11 other people named by the former attorney general. He said that those 11 people have things to say and that he wants to hear from them. We agree with the minister. Canadians have the right to hear those individuals' side of the Liberal scandal.Can the Prime Minister tell us today when we will hear his testimony, as well as the testimony of Gerald Butts, Katie Telford, Mathieu Bouchard and all of the others who applied consistent and sustained pressure on the former attorney general?

Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Prime Minister and he should have the decency to answer for himself.The Prime Minister says that there is a difference of opinion. I will ask him a very specific question. In a meeting with the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister, the former attorney general said that the clerk indicated that they had to find a solution quickly because “There is a board meeting on Thursday...with stockholders.”Does the Prime Minister deny that these words were spoken, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, we know that members of the justice committee are doing their job. They are calling witnesses, and witnesses are appearing and answering questions. We know that the Conservatives continue to talk out of both sides of their mouths. They say one thing in French and another in English.Canadians will have a choice to make between our plan to invest in our communities, grow our economy, and support middle-class jobs or the party of Stephen Harper that wants to divide Canadians and has no plan for the economy or jobs.

Mr. Speaker, there is a clear difference between the way this Prime Minister and our government governs versus the approach of the previous government. We on this side respect the work of committees. We on this side respect the work of officers of Parliament. We on this side respect the independence of the judicial system. The justice committee members have asked for witnesses to appear. Witnesses are appearing and they are providing answers. It was important for Canadians that the former attorney general be able to speak openly at the justice committee. The Prime Minister worked with the current Attorney General to ensure that solicitor-client privilege would be waived, as well as cabinet confidence.

Mr. Speaker, does anyone still wonder why the Prime Minister made sure his last question period happened before the explosive testimony from the former attorney general? Because I do not. Then the Prime Minister had the audacity to tell Canadians that he rejected this damning and detailed testimony, and then admitted that he had not actually listened to it all. Talk about arrogance. Talk about tone deaf. She told us of a consistent and sustained effort to politically interfere in a public prosecution, and a B.C. Liberal said that this was all sour grapes and she just was not a good “team player”. I guess being a good team Liberal player means a willingness to break the law.When will they stop with the misogynistic smears and just agree to a public inquiry?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard explosive testimony from the former attorney general. It directly involved the Prime Minister of Canada, and Canadians still have not heard the whole story. The Prime Minister is not allowing the former attorney general to discuss anything that happened after she was removed from her role. Yesterday the Liberal majority on the justice committee voted no when I asked that she be able to tell us what happened after that date.Will the Prime Minister stop trying to save himself and remove the restrictions that he imposed on her so she can tell her entire story?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, in the House, as well as outside of the House, has said that it is important that Canadians be able to hear from witnesses, including the former attorney general. The Prime Minister worked with the current Attorney General to ensure that solicitor-client privilege could be waived as well as cabinet confidence.The former attorney general, yesterday in her testimony stated that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. The former attorney general stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts.In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way. Why can the member not accept that?

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. Yesterday, the former attorney general stated that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. The former attorney general stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed at every step of the way. The job of any Prime Minister is to stand up for Canadians, Canadian workers and the rule of law. It was important for Canadians to hear the testimony of the former attorney general. Committee members made sure that happened. That member should stop putting words in other people's mouths.

Mr. Speaker, jobs? Job one of the Prime Minister is to be more ethical than Richard Nixon. Let us talk about the threats, like when Michael Wernick said that the Prime Minister “is going to find a way to get it done, one way or another. He is in that kind of mood, and I wanted you to be aware of it.” He further said that she did not want to be on a collision course with the Prime Minister. I asked her if she felt threatened. She said she was not threatened once in that meeting; she was threatened three times.It is not the role of the Clerk of the Privy Council to act as the personal goon of the Prime Minister. At the very least, will they call on Michael Wernick to step down today?

Mr. Speaker, our government will always stand up for Canadian workers and the importance of the rule of law.We have been clear since day one, when it comes to the work of committees, this is the government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, that increased resources to committees so they could do their work. They do very important work.The Conservatives will continue to undermine their work. The Conservatives are the party that has chosen a new leader, but it is clear that it remains the party of Stephen Harper. They put out a rule book to undermine and destroy the work of committees.We on this side will not do that. We will let the committees do their work. We will respect officers of Parliament as well.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side know that it is never acceptable for such comments to occur. We on this side respect the work of committees. We on this side respect the work of officers of Parliament. We on this side respect the independence of our judicial system. We on this side recognize the importance of the issue. We recognize that it is important that Canadians get to hear all of the different perspectives. Committees are doing their work. Witnesses are appearing to answer those questions. We will not play the politics of division, as the Conservatives always continue to do.

Mr. Speaker, once again for the record, the justice committee is meeting. It has called witnesses. Witnesses are appearing and answering questions. There was a time not too long ago that the opposition was denying that the committee would ever meet. The committee is meeting. They were denying that witnesses would appear. Witnesses are appearing, and they are answering. They were denying that the former attorney general would be invited. She was invited, and she appeared. They denied that the former attorney general would be able to share her perspective and share her side. She appeared yesterday and she shared it.She confirmed that the Prime Minister at every step told her it was her decision to take. In the end—

Mr. Speaker, the former attorney general stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed at every step of the way.The job of any prime minister is to stand up for Canadians and Canadian workers. That is exactly what we do on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, it was important for Canadians that the former attorney general be able to speak openly at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Yesterday we heard from the former attorney general. She confirmed that the Prime Minister told her that it was her decision to take.In the end, the former attorney general decided not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way. Every prime minister has a duty to stand up for Canadians, including workers. That is exactly what we are doing on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, from the beginning, the Prime Minister has said that he and his staff acted appropriately and professionally. We will always focus on jobs, the middle class and the economy.There were, of course, discussions about the potential loss of 9,000 jobs across the country, including a possible impact on pensions.The job of any prime minister is to stand up for Canadians. That is exactly what our government and our Prime Minister will do.

Mr. Speaker, it was important for Canadians that the former attorney general be able to speak openly before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.The members of that committee are doing their job. They are calling witnesses, and witnesses are appearing before the committee. We, on this side of the House, respect the work of the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We will not interfere, as the Conservatives like to do. We know that committees are capable of doing their job, and we have confidence in them.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that Canadians be able to hear from witnesses, including the former attorney general. Members who sit on the justice committee work together, members from both sides, to ensure that witnesses are appearing. Witnesses are appearing and answering questions. Yesterday we heard the former attorney general confirm that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. The former attorney general stated it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way.

Mr. Speaker, what we know is that the justice committee is doing its work. The justice committee is actually having witnesses appear and answer those questions.We also know that the former attorney general confirmed that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. We also know that the former attorney general confirmed that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. We also know that the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. We also know that the law was followed at every step.The job of any prime minister is to stand up for Canadians and Canadian workers. That is exactly what we do on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians wanted to hear from the former attorney general, and Canadians got to hear from the former attorney general.We on this side have confidence in the work that committees do. We know that members of Parliament from both sides sit on that committee. They have been able to have meetings. They are calling witnesses. Witnesses are appearing and answering those questions.It is important that witnesses be able to share their perspectives. We on this side respect that. We on this side will fight for Canadian jobs.Perhaps if the Conservatives, rather than playing partisan politics, focused on creating growth, they would not have had the worst growth since the Great Depression.

Mr. Speaker, over the past two weeks, I have heard from several constituents concerned about the outbreak of measles in Alberta and British Columbia. While measles was eliminated in Canada over 20 years ago, we know that outbreaks sometimes do occur. I would like to ask the Minister of Health, what is the most effective way to fight measles?

Mr. Speaker, our government has led the world in creating a special program for Yazidi and other survivors of Daesh and in recognizing the genocide that was perpetrated against these communities. Even more so, countless Canadians and Londoners have welcomed victimized families and helped them find a new peace in Canada. Some Yazidi refugees have close family members that they would like to see join them in this country. Can the minister update the House on what the government is doing to facilitate family reunification for survivors of Daesh?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said all along that he and his staff acted appropriately and professionally. Yesterday, the former attorney general confirmed that the Prime Minister had said the decision was hers to make. The members who sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will do their job, and the Conservatives will continue playing politics instead of focusing on Canadian workers.All prime ministers must stand up for Canadian workers, which is what we are doing.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening, the NDP and the Conservatives cheered the former attorney general on as she settled scores with the Prime Minister's Office.Not many people seemed all that concerned about the real issue: Why did she decide to sacrifice thousands of jobs in Canada and Quebec for the sake of standing up to her leader?Now that the Liberals have made a huge mess of the SNC-Lavalin affair, what exactly is the government going to do to save the company's head office and the jobs of thousands of Quebeckers?

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the member to have more regard and respect for the former attorney general's testimony yesterday. She confirmed that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. The former attorney general stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way.The job of any Prime Minister is to stand up for Canadians and Canadian workers and that is exactly what this Prime Minister did. We, on this side, have confidence in the work of committees. We know that witnesses will appear and—

Mr. Speaker, as we have always said, it was important for Canadians to be able to hear from witnesses, including the former attorney general. We know that the Prime Minister worked with the current Attorney General to ensure that we could waive solicitor-client privilege as well as cabinet confidence.Yesterday we saw that Canadians were able to hear directly from the former attorney general. Canadians are able to watch the justice committee look at this file, look at witnesses appearing and their answers. We recognize that the committee system is working, because even that member, yesterday, was given the opportunity to ask questions directly of the witness. We on this side have confidence in our institutions.

Mr. Speaker, it was important for Canadians to hear from witnesses on this matter, including the former attorney general. We know the justice committee is doing its work. We on this side respect the work the committees do. That is exactly why this government increased resources for them. We also know the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is looking into this matter. We on this side respect our officers of Parliament.We also know that there are two ongoing court cases. We on this side respect the independence of our judicial system. That is unfortunately not the case for the Conservatives.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in this House, it was extremely important for the former attorney general to speak to the issues at hand. Waiver is an exceptional remedy, specifically when it relates to cabinet confidences and solicitor-client privilege. Every lawyer in this House who has a seat in the chamber knows that to be the case. The waiver was provided in this case so that the former attorney general could speak to this issue and address the concerns of not just parliamentarians but all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, he does not deny it. Clearly, the former attorney general is telling the truth.I have another question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the former attorney general also testified that Mathieu Bouchard, a senior adviser in the Prime Minister's Office, tried to pressure her in regard to the SNC-Lavalin deal by saying, “We can have the best policy in the world, but we need to get re-elected.” Again, does the Prime Minister deny that this was said?

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are going to look at the facts. We believe that Canadians are capable of making up their own minds.The former attorney general stated that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. She also stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way. The job of any prime minister is to stand up for Canadians and Canadian workers.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the government House leader to let us know what we might be doing when we return. We are very concerned with some of the things that are happening and we would like to get some clarity on what is going to be happening the rest of this week and the week we return.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the justice committee is looking at this file. Once again, it has continued to call witnesses. Members of Parliament from both sides of the aisle are working together to have those witnesses appear.Yesterday we heard from the former attorney general. She confirmed that the Prime Minister, at all instances, confirmed that it was her decision to take.We know that committees are doing their work. We also know that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is looking at this file. We also know that there are two ongoing court cases. We on this side respect the work of committees. We respect the work of officers of Parliament. We respect the independence of the judicial system.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been clear since the beginning that he and his staff always acted appropriately and professionally. It was important for Canadians to be able to hear from the former attorney general. The members of the justice committee have been working together, members from both sides, to have witnesses appear. Witnesses are appearing. They are answering those questions. Canadians are able to hear that testimony and it is important that they do.Our government will always focus on jobs, growing the middle class and strengthening our economy. There were, of course, discussions about the potential loss of 9,000 jobs in communities across the country, including a possible impact on pensions. It is a job of—

Mr. Speaker, Canada has made major contributions to space science and technology, such as satellite communications technology, the Canadarm and satellites in space. When we invest in science, innovation and research, we foster economic growth, create thousands of jobs for Canadian workers and gain a better understanding of our world. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development tell us a bit more about this?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will always stand up for Canadian workers and the importance of the rule of law. Prime ministers should fight for Canadian jobs.On this side, we respect the work of committees. We have confidence in our institutions, as all Canadians should.What is clear is that the Conservatives will continue their partisan ways. They will put politics ahead of Canadians. We will not do that on this side. We are fighting for Canadians and we see the results. We know that Canadians are better off today than they were under Stephen Harper's Conservatives. The Conservatives have chosen a new leader, but it remains Stephen Harper's party of austerity.

Mr. Speaker, it was extremely important for the former attorney general to come to the committee and to share her views on this important issue. The waiver of cabinet confidences and of solicitor-client privilege is an exceptional form of relief, and it was provided here because all Canadians needed to hear the former attorney general speak to this important issue.We want to assure Canadians that they are getting the answers to the information they are seeking. It is important for Canadians to hear the diverse perspectives on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from Brossard—Saint-Lambert for her excellent question.This morning, the Prime Minister was in Saint-Hubert to announce an investment of more than $2 billion in Canada's space program. This historic investment is part of Canada's new partnership in the Lunar Gateway project.This NASA-led project will make it possible to return to the moon and to prepare for more thorough exploration of Mars. This partnership provides new opportunities for our astronauts to participate in space missions and for our scientists to conduct groundbreaking research. Our investments will create hundreds of well-paid jobs and make it possible for Canadian explorers—

I only wish the NDP were as effective at building houses as they are at screaming.

Mr. Speaker, I can say that I ran for the Liberal Party because this Prime Minister had a plan, a plan for the economy and a plan for kids. What is interesting is that every step of the way, the Conservatives voted against it. We brought forward the Canada child benefit, a tax-free benefit to help families with children who need it the most. This week it was confirmed that close to 300,000 children have been lifted out of poverty, and over 800,000 Canadians are benefiting from this program. The Conservatives voted against it every single time. Over 800,000 jobs have been created by Canadians because of our investment. The Conservatives—

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be part of a government that has invested $5.7 billion in the national housing strategy. That money arrived in our first budget, and we are now spending $40 billion over the next 10 years. Every one of those programs is eligible to be subscribed to by indigenous groups across this country. In fact, the $13.2-billion co-investment fund is building real housing for real people, led by indigenous communities, as we speak. However, there is an additional program that was announced on top of that, which is a program to try to build more indigenous housing off reserve. That program is now financed and is delivering real housing for real people.

Mr. Speaker, I very much welcome your wisdom on this matter. The decisions that I took were very much done in consultation with the clerk of the committee and very much done with reference to the Standing Orders, some of which were referred to by the previous speaker and some of which were not. It was done very much in conversation with the table officers, who helped us through this decision. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I welcome your ruling on this when it is appropriate for you to do so, and that will help our committee to continue its work, which it has always meant to do in good faith.It can be assumed that when our committee lost quorum, we would obviously have wanted to continue, but the suspension of the meeting was based on a precedent from 2013 and deemed adjourned, so our meeting could go on. The committee was advised at the subsequent meeting that they could resume that debate based on a motion to change the agenda for that committee, and that would have been a non-debatable motion; however, it was not moved.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for his passion for the health of Canadians. The answer is simple. The best way to fight measles is by getting the measles vaccination. Vaccines are one of the most powerful public health tools we have, and they are the reason measles was eliminated in Canada. Our government knows this, which is why we have committed $25 million over five years to get more Canadians vaccinated. The evidence is clear. Vaccines are safe and effective and save lives.

Mr. Speaker, the justice committee is looking at this file. We on this side of the House respect the work of committees and that is why we increased resources for committees so that they could do their important work. There was a time when that member used to respect the work of committees in this place and our institutions. We also know that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is looking at this file. We have confidence in our officers of Parliament, as all members should and all Canadians as well. There are two court cases proceeding. We on this side have respect for the independence of the judicial system, as I would encourage all members to as well.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for London North Centre for his amazing advocacy on this issue. In fact, I joined him recently in London where we met members of the Yazidi community and we heard first-hand not only of their triumphs but also some of the challenges they continue to face. We are very proud on this side of the House to offer protection to over 1,400 survivors of Daesh atrocities. I am happy to update the House that our government has taken the extra step of extending the one-year window to allow more Yazidis to sponsor their family members. On this side of the House, instead of engaging in fearmongering, we will stand up—

Mr. Speaker, we on this side have confidence that the justice committee will have witnesses appear. Witnesses are appearing. They are answering questions. We on this side have confidence that it will be able to do that work. We on this side also know that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is looking into this matter. We have confidence in our officers of Parliament. We also know that there are two ongoing court cases. We on this side have respect and confidence in the independence of the judicial system.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side have confidence that the justice committee will have witnesses appear. Witnesses are appearing. They are answering questions. We on this side have confidence that it will be able to do that work. We on this side also know that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is looking into this matter. We have confidence in our officers of Parliament. We also know that there are two ongoing court cases. We on this side have respect and confidence in the independence of the judicial system.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for London North Centre for his amazing advocacy on this issue. In fact, I joined him recently in London where we met members of the Yazidi community and we heard first-hand not only of their triumphs but also some of the challenges they continue to face. We are very proud on this side of the House to offer protection to over 1,400 survivors of Daesh atrocities. I am happy to update the House that our government has taken the extra step of extending the one-year window to allow more Yazidis to sponsor their family members. On this side of the House, instead of engaging in fearmongering, we will stand up—

Mr. Speaker, the justice committee is looking at this file. We on this side of the House respect the work of committees and that is why we increased resources for committees so that they could do their important work. There was a time when that member used to respect the work of committees in this place and our institutions. We also know that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is looking at this file. We have confidence in our officers of Parliament, as all members should and all Canadians as well. There are two court cases proceeding. We on this side have respect for the independence of the judicial system, as I would encourage all members to as well.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for his passion for the health of Canadians. The answer is simple. The best way to fight measles is by getting the measles vaccination. Vaccines are one of the most powerful public health tools we have, and they are the reason measles was eliminated in Canada. Our government knows this, which is why we have committed $25 million over five years to get more Canadians vaccinated. The evidence is clear. Vaccines are safe and effective and save lives.

Mr. Speaker, I very much welcome your wisdom on this matter. The decisions that I took were very much done in consultation with the clerk of the committee and very much done with reference to the Standing Orders, some of which were referred to by the previous speaker and some of which were not. It was done very much in conversation with the table officers, who helped us through this decision. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I welcome your ruling on this when it is appropriate for you to do so, and that will help our committee to continue its work, which it has always meant to do in good faith.It can be assumed that when our committee lost quorum, we would obviously have wanted to continue, but the suspension of the meeting was based on a precedent from 2013 and deemed adjourned, so our meeting could go on. The committee was advised at the subsequent meeting that they could resume that debate based on a motion to change the agenda for that committee, and that would have been a non-debatable motion; however, it was not moved.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be part of a government that has invested $5.7 billion in the national housing strategy. That money arrived in our first budget, and we are now spending $40 billion over the next 10 years. Every one of those programs is eligible to be subscribed to by indigenous groups across this country. In fact, the $13.2-billion co-investment fund is building real housing for real people, led by indigenous communities, as we speak. However, there is an additional program that was announced on top of that, which is a program to try to build more indigenous housing off reserve. That program is now financed and is delivering real housing for real people.

Mr. Speaker, I can say that I ran for the Liberal Party because this Prime Minister had a plan, a plan for the economy and a plan for kids. What is interesting is that every step of the way, the Conservatives voted against it. We brought forward the Canada child benefit, a tax-free benefit to help families with children who need it the most. This week it was confirmed that close to 300,000 children have been lifted out of poverty, and over 800,000 Canadians are benefiting from this program. The Conservatives voted against it every single time. Over 800,000 jobs have been created by Canadians because of our investment. The Conservatives—

I only wish the NDP were as effective at building houses as they are at screaming.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from Brossard—Saint-Lambert for her excellent question.This morning, the Prime Minister was in Saint-Hubert to announce an investment of more than $2 billion in Canada's space program. This historic investment is part of Canada's new partnership in the Lunar Gateway project.This NASA-led project will make it possible to return to the moon and to prepare for more thorough exploration of Mars. This partnership provides new opportunities for our astronauts to participate in space missions and for our scientists to conduct groundbreaking research. Our investments will create hundreds of well-paid jobs and make it possible for Canadian explorers—

Mr. Speaker, it was extremely important for the former attorney general to come to the committee and to share her views on this important issue. The waiver of cabinet confidences and of solicitor-client privilege is an exceptional form of relief, and it was provided here because all Canadians needed to hear the former attorney general speak to this important issue.We want to assure Canadians that they are getting the answers to the information they are seeking. It is important for Canadians to hear the diverse perspectives on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will always stand up for Canadian workers and the importance of the rule of law. Prime ministers should fight for Canadian jobs.On this side, we respect the work of committees. We have confidence in our institutions, as all Canadians should.What is clear is that the Conservatives will continue their partisan ways. They will put politics ahead of Canadians. We will not do that on this side. We are fighting for Canadians and we see the results. We know that Canadians are better off today than they were under Stephen Harper's Conservatives. The Conservatives have chosen a new leader, but it remains Stephen Harper's party of austerity.

Mr. Speaker, Canada has made major contributions to space science and technology, such as satellite communications technology, the Canadarm and satellites in space. When we invest in science, innovation and research, we foster economic growth, create thousands of jobs for Canadian workers and gain a better understanding of our world. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development tell us a bit more about this?

Mr. Speaker, we know that the justice committee is looking at this file. Once again, it has continued to call witnesses. Members of Parliament from both sides of the aisle are working together to have those witnesses appear.Yesterday we heard from the former attorney general. She confirmed that the Prime Minister, at all instances, confirmed that it was her decision to take.We know that committees are doing their work. We also know that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is looking at this file. We also know that there are two ongoing court cases. We on this side respect the work of committees. We respect the work of officers of Parliament. We respect the independence of the judicial system.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been clear since the beginning that he and his staff always acted appropriately and professionally. It was important for Canadians to be able to hear from the former attorney general. The members of the justice committee have been working together, members from both sides, to have witnesses appear. Witnesses are appearing. They are answering those questions. Canadians are able to hear that testimony and it is important that they do.Our government will always focus on jobs, growing the middle class and strengthening our economy. There were, of course, discussions about the potential loss of 9,000 jobs in communities across the country, including a possible impact on pensions. It is a job of—

Mr. Speaker, he does not deny it. Clearly, the former attorney general is telling the truth.I have another question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the former attorney general also testified that Mathieu Bouchard, a senior adviser in the Prime Minister's Office, tried to pressure her in regard to the SNC-Lavalin deal by saying, “We can have the best policy in the world, but we need to get re-elected.” Again, does the Prime Minister deny that this was said?

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are going to look at the facts. We believe that Canadians are capable of making up their own minds.The former attorney general stated that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. She also stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way. The job of any prime minister is to stand up for Canadians and Canadian workers.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the government House leader to let us know what we might be doing when we return. We are very concerned with some of the things that are happening and we would like to get some clarity on what is going to be happening the rest of this week and the week we return.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in this House, it was extremely important for the former attorney general to speak to the issues at hand. Waiver is an exceptional remedy, specifically when it relates to cabinet confidences and solicitor-client privilege. Every lawyer in this House who has a seat in the chamber knows that to be the case. The waiver was provided in this case so that the former attorney general could speak to this issue and address the concerns of not just parliamentarians but all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, it was important for Canadians to hear from witnesses on this matter, including the former attorney general. We know the justice committee is doing its work. We on this side respect the work the committees do. That is exactly why this government increased resources for them. We also know the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is looking into this matter. We on this side respect our officers of Parliament.We also know that there are two ongoing court cases. We on this side respect the independence of our judicial system. That is unfortunately not the case for the Conservatives.

Mr. Speaker, as we have always said, it was important for Canadians to be able to hear from witnesses, including the former attorney general. We know that the Prime Minister worked with the current Attorney General to ensure that we could waive solicitor-client privilege as well as cabinet confidence.Yesterday we saw that Canadians were able to hear directly from the former attorney general. Canadians are able to watch the justice committee look at this file, look at witnesses appearing and their answers. We recognize that the committee system is working, because even that member, yesterday, was given the opportunity to ask questions directly of the witness. We on this side have confidence in our institutions.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the member to have more regard and respect for the former attorney general's testimony yesterday. She confirmed that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. The former attorney general stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way.The job of any Prime Minister is to stand up for Canadians and Canadian workers and that is exactly what this Prime Minister did. We, on this side, have confidence in the work of committees. We know that witnesses will appear and—

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said all along that he and his staff acted appropriately and professionally. Yesterday, the former attorney general confirmed that the Prime Minister had said the decision was hers to make. The members who sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will do their job, and the Conservatives will continue playing politics instead of focusing on Canadian workers.All prime ministers must stand up for Canadian workers, which is what we are doing.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening, the NDP and the Conservatives cheered the former attorney general on as she settled scores with the Prime Minister's Office.Not many people seemed all that concerned about the real issue: Why did she decide to sacrifice thousands of jobs in Canada and Quebec for the sake of standing up to her leader?Now that the Liberals have made a huge mess of the SNC-Lavalin affair, what exactly is the government going to do to save the company's head office and the jobs of thousands of Quebeckers?

Mr. Speaker, our government has led the world in creating a special program for Yazidi and other survivors of Daesh and in recognizing the genocide that was perpetrated against these communities. Even more so, countless Canadians and Londoners have welcomed victimized families and helped them find a new peace in Canada. Some Yazidi refugees have close family members that they would like to see join them in this country. Can the minister update the House on what the government is doing to facilitate family reunification for survivors of Daesh?

Mr. Speaker, over the past two weeks, I have heard from several constituents concerned about the outbreak of measles in Alberta and British Columbia. While measles was eliminated in Canada over 20 years ago, we know that outbreaks sometimes do occur. I would like to ask the Minister of Health, what is the most effective way to fight measles?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians wanted to hear from the former attorney general, and Canadians got to hear from the former attorney general.We on this side have confidence in the work that committees do. We know that members of Parliament from both sides sit on that committee. They have been able to have meetings. They are calling witnesses. Witnesses are appearing and answering those questions.It is important that witnesses be able to share their perspectives. We on this side respect that. We on this side will fight for Canadian jobs.Perhaps if the Conservatives, rather than playing partisan politics, focused on creating growth, they would not have had the worst growth since the Great Depression.

Mr. Speaker, what we know is that the justice committee is doing its work. The justice committee is actually having witnesses appear and answer those questions.We also know that the former attorney general confirmed that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. We also know that the former attorney general confirmed that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. We also know that the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. We also know that the law was followed at every step.The job of any prime minister is to stand up for Canadians and Canadian workers. That is exactly what we do on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that Canadians be able to hear from witnesses, including the former attorney general. Members who sit on the justice committee work together, members from both sides, to ensure that witnesses are appearing. Witnesses are appearing and answering questions. Yesterday we heard the former attorney general confirm that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. The former attorney general stated it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way.

Mr. Speaker, it was important for Canadians that the former attorney general be able to speak openly before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.The members of that committee are doing their job. They are calling witnesses, and witnesses are appearing before the committee. We, on this side of the House, respect the work of the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We will not interfere, as the Conservatives like to do. We know that committees are capable of doing their job, and we have confidence in them.

Mr. Speaker, the former attorney general stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed at every step of the way.The job of any prime minister is to stand up for Canadians and Canadian workers. That is exactly what we do on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, it was important for Canadians that the former attorney general be able to speak openly at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Yesterday we heard from the former attorney general. She confirmed that the Prime Minister told her that it was her decision to take.In the end, the former attorney general decided not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way. Every prime minister has a duty to stand up for Canadians, including workers. That is exactly what we are doing on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, from the beginning, the Prime Minister has said that he and his staff acted appropriately and professionally. We will always focus on jobs, the middle class and the economy.There were, of course, discussions about the potential loss of 9,000 jobs across the country, including a possible impact on pensions.The job of any prime minister is to stand up for Canadians. That is exactly what our government and our Prime Minister will do.

Mr. Speaker, once again for the record, the justice committee is meeting. It has called witnesses. Witnesses are appearing and answering questions. There was a time not too long ago that the opposition was denying that the committee would ever meet. The committee is meeting. They were denying that witnesses would appear. Witnesses are appearing, and they are answering. They were denying that the former attorney general would be invited. She was invited, and she appeared. They denied that the former attorney general would be able to share her perspective and share her side. She appeared yesterday and she shared it.She confirmed that the Prime Minister at every step told her it was her decision to take. In the end—

Mr. Speaker, we on this side know that it is never acceptable for such comments to occur. We on this side respect the work of committees. We on this side respect the work of officers of Parliament. We on this side respect the independence of our judicial system. We on this side recognize the importance of the issue. We recognize that it is important that Canadians get to hear all of the different perspectives. Committees are doing their work. Witnesses are appearing to answer those questions. We will not play the politics of division, as the Conservatives always continue to do.

Mr. Speaker, our government will always stand up for Canadian workers and the importance of the rule of law.We have been clear since day one, when it comes to the work of committees, this is the government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, that increased resources to committees so they could do their work. They do very important work.The Conservatives will continue to undermine their work. The Conservatives are the party that has chosen a new leader, but it is clear that it remains the party of Stephen Harper. They put out a rule book to undermine and destroy the work of committees.We on this side will not do that. We will let the committees do their work. We will respect officers of Parliament as well.

Mr. Speaker, jobs? Job one of the Prime Minister is to be more ethical than Richard Nixon. Let us talk about the threats, like when Michael Wernick said that the Prime Minister “is going to find a way to get it done, one way or another. He is in that kind of mood, and I wanted you to be aware of it.” He further said that she did not want to be on a collision course with the Prime Minister. I asked her if she felt threatened. She said she was not threatened once in that meeting; she was threatened three times.It is not the role of the Clerk of the Privy Council to act as the personal goon of the Prime Minister. At the very least, will they call on Michael Wernick to step down today?

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. Yesterday, the former attorney general stated that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. The former attorney general stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed at every step of the way. The job of any Prime Minister is to stand up for Canadians, Canadian workers and the rule of law. It was important for Canadians to hear the testimony of the former attorney general. Committee members made sure that happened. That member should stop putting words in other people's mouths.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, in the House, as well as outside of the House, has said that it is important that Canadians be able to hear from witnesses, including the former attorney general. The Prime Minister worked with the current Attorney General to ensure that solicitor-client privilege could be waived as well as cabinet confidence.The former attorney general, yesterday in her testimony stated that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. The former attorney general stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts.In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way. Why can the member not accept that?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard explosive testimony from the former attorney general. It directly involved the Prime Minister of Canada, and Canadians still have not heard the whole story. The Prime Minister is not allowing the former attorney general to discuss anything that happened after she was removed from her role. Yesterday the Liberal majority on the justice committee voted no when I asked that she be able to tell us what happened after that date.Will the Prime Minister stop trying to save himself and remove the restrictions that he imposed on her so she can tell her entire story?

Mr. Speaker, does anyone still wonder why the Prime Minister made sure his last question period happened before the explosive testimony from the former attorney general? Because I do not. Then the Prime Minister had the audacity to tell Canadians that he rejected this damning and detailed testimony, and then admitted that he had not actually listened to it all. Talk about arrogance. Talk about tone deaf. She told us of a consistent and sustained effort to politically interfere in a public prosecution, and a B.C. Liberal said that this was all sour grapes and she just was not a good “team player”. I guess being a good team Liberal player means a willingness to break the law.When will they stop with the misogynistic smears and just agree to a public inquiry?

Mr. Speaker, there is a clear difference between the way this Prime Minister and our government governs versus the approach of the previous government. We on this side respect the work of committees. We on this side respect the work of officers of Parliament. We on this side respect the independence of the judicial system. The justice committee members have asked for witnesses to appear. Witnesses are appearing and they are providing answers. It was important for Canadians that the former attorney general be able to speak openly at the justice committee. The Prime Minister worked with the current Attorney General to ensure that solicitor-client privilege would be waived, as well as cabinet confidence.

Mr. Speaker, we know that members of the justice committee are doing their job. They are calling witnesses, and witnesses are appearing and answering questions. We know that the Conservatives continue to talk out of both sides of their mouths. They say one thing in French and another in English.Canadians will have a choice to make between our plan to invest in our communities, grow our economy, and support middle-class jobs or the party of Stephen Harper that wants to divide Canadians and has no plan for the economy or jobs.

Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Prime Minister and he should have the decency to answer for himself.The Prime Minister says that there is a difference of opinion. I will ask him a very specific question. In a meeting with the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister, the former attorney general said that the clerk indicated that they had to find a solution quickly because “There is a board meeting on Thursday...with stockholders.”Does the Prime Minister deny that these words were spoken, yes or no?

It is obvious that the Prime Minister is choosing the truth he wants to hear.Since yesterday evening, the Minister of Infrastructure has been taking every opportunity to repeat that we must hear the testimony of the 11 other people named by the former attorney general. He said that those 11 people have things to say and that he wants to hear from them. We agree with the minister. Canadians have the right to hear those individuals' side of the Liberal scandal.Can the Prime Minister tell us today when we will hear his testimony, as well as the testimony of Gerald Butts, Katie Telford, Mathieu Bouchard and all of the others who applied consistent and sustained pressure on the former attorney general?

Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out to the member opposite. In my previous work, I worked extensively with people who are indigenous and who suffer from mental health and addictions every single day. We need to do more. That is why our government is working closely to close the gap between health services for indigenous people and non-indigenous people. To close that gap, we are investing in 52 new community-led mental wellness teams that are now serving over 344 communities.I will take the request from the member back to the new minister and make sure that he has an opportunity to meet with the member at his first availability.

Mr. Speaker, as was indicated in the House of Commons, the government's goal has been to allow the former minister to speak freely about the matters that relate to this issue that has been raised. The integrity of judicial proceedings is also a priority for our government. The waiver that has been provided does not cover any information shared by the director of public prosecutions with the former attorney general. That information is protected because two ongoing prosecutions are en route now.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, people were appalled at the former attorney general's account of the inappropriate pressure the Prime Minister himself and his staff subjected her to.The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the chief of staff, the principal secretary and seven other highly placed individuals put inappropriate, repeated and sustained pressure on the former attorney general. She repeatedly said no, and she was fired.How low will the Prime Minister go to get a good deal for wealthy friends of his with strong ties to the Liberal Party of Canada?

Mr. Speaker, when members such as that member start mis-characterizing witness testimony, it actually takes away from the debate and the level of discourse in this place. We know that the former attorney general stated that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. We know that the former attorney general stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts.

Mr. Speaker, I have additional information for your consideration.What I observed to transpire at that meeting was that the Liberal members of the committee went down to the committee meeting, and it appeared to me that they were advised to leave the room so that quorum could not be obtained. I would ask you to look into this in great detail, because I would refute my colleague's assertion that this was done in good faith. I also would refute the assertion that the government members on the committee have the intent to proceed in an orderly fashion.The motion that was before the committee on which the government did proceed in this manner and subsequently adjourned the meeting was a motion to study the family reunification of the Yazidi victims of genocide. There were members of the community in the room, and they have observed this. I think that it is very important that we look at all the facts that occurred in this meeting, because, to me, it sets some very dangerous precedent in the ability of a chair to unilaterally end debate on a motion that the government members may or may not like.

Mr. Speaker, people want the truth, the whole truth.After the former attorney general testified, the prime minister said that he disagreed with her testimony. Then he admitted that he did not even listen to all of it. He is changing his story again. Canadians want the truth and they deserve the truth from their Prime Minister. The question is very simple. We need a public inquiry into the wrongful pressure by the Prime Minister and his office.Will the Prime Minister agree to a public inquiry to shed light on this issue and to get the entire truth?

Mr. Speaker, here are the Liberal lines on the mountain of evidence that were presented yesterday by the former attorney general: Her dad is pulling her strings. Why didn't she say no more forcefully? Why didn't she report it sooner? She experienced it differently. Gaslighting a strong woman, especially one with a mountain of evidence, at the behest of the fake feminist who through his actions uses women instead of supporting them, sets women back. Why are not all women in that caucus, and their so-called feminist allies, calling for the Prime Minister's resignation?

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts.According to the former attorney general of Canada, the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. The former attorney general stated that staff in the Prime Minister's Office said they did not want to act inappropriately. The former attorney general stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way.

Mr. Speaker, we now know that the only job the Prime Minister was interested in protecting was his own. Yesterday's testimony revealed that the Prime Minister looked Canadians in the eyes and he said that the former attorney general had never raised concerns about his political interference. We now learn that she did raise her concerns in September.If the Prime Minister does believe that her testimony under oath is false, will he show up to committee to refute it?

Mr. Speaker, there is no place for misogyny or sexism. We know that is very much the case.I will remain focused on the issue. I can assure that member that we will look into this matter. We take it very seriously. I take it very seriously. The Prime Minister takes it very seriously.When it comes to the matter before us, if we remain focused on the issue, we know that the former attorney general was able to appear at committee. We know that the former attorney general stated that the Prime Minister told her that it was her decision to make. We know that the former attorney general stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts, and we know—

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Canadians heard some very troubling testimony yesterday, which clearly showed that there was consistent and sustained pressure from the PMO and the Prime Minister to politically interfere in a criminal case.Upon reading the testimony, it is clear that we still do not have all of the information and that we are missing an important piece of the puzzle.When will the Prime Minister waive all his privileges and let Canadians hear the rest of this scandal?

Mr. Speaker, we, on this side, will remain focused on Canadians. The former attorney general stated that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. The former attorney general stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way and the former attorney general confirmed that.The job of any prime minister is to stand up for Canadians and Canadian workers. We, on this side, will keep investing in Canadians. We, on this side, will keep fighting for Canadian jobs. That is what a government does. That is what a prime minister does. It is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition does not understand that.

Mr. Speaker, the former attorney general confirmed yesterday that she was pressured by the offices of the Prime Minister, the Privy Council and the Minister of Finance to change her position on prosecuting SNC-Lavalin.The Prime Minister cannot continue to govern, plain and simple. Now that Canadians know what he did, he must resign. Will he do so?

Mr. Speaker, it is clear: they do not dispute it, they admit it. In her testimony, the former attorney general of Canada said, “Various officials urged me to take partisan political considerations into account, which it was clearly improper for me to do”. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he disputes her testimony?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians were told by the former attorney general that on September 17, in relation to the SNC-Lavalin affair, the Prime Minister told her that there is an election in Quebec and that “I am an MP in Quebec, the member for Papineau.”Does the Prime Minister deny saying that?

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Prime Minister should not be hiding behind other members of his government. He should be answering these questions himself.We did hear from the former attorney general yesterday. Now we want to hear from the Prime Minister, the man who stands accused of major political interference in a criminal case.In one of the meetings between his staff and the former attorney general, Mathieu Bouchard said, “We can have the best policy in the world but we need to get re-elected.”Does the Prime Minister deny that those words were spoken, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, on this day last year, every single Liberal member voted against my motion to create a national plan to end and prevent homelessness. This week, they announced funding for urban and indigenous homelessness but have no idea where the money will go or when it will be spent. Instead of working on ending homelessness, the Prime Minister has been busy pressuring the former attorney general to break the law for his corporate friends. When will he finally turn his attention to the real issues facing Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, the former attorney general gave a detailed and devastating account of a relentless campaign to try to force her to break the law. The Prime Minister first said that if the former attorney general had a problem, she should have complained. Well, she did, and the bullying and the pressure and the veiled threats got worse. Then he said that she just should have quit. Well, thank God that she did not, because when she was there, she was standing up for the rule of law. Yesterday, Canadians watched a fearless and courageous indigenous woman who stood up against the most powerful men in this country. When are the Liberals going to have even a scintilla of that courage to call for a full public inquiry?

Mr. Speaker, the former justice minister has revealed that the Prime Minister of Canada has coordinated a campaign of intimidation and interference against her to protect his partisan interests as the MP for Papineau. The finance minister attempted to interfere in the course of justice. The Clerk of the Privy Council delivered the threats. Gerry Butts and Katie Telford said that they were not interested in what was legal. The former justice minister referred to the Prime Minister as Richard Milhous Nixon.Will the Prime Minister stop the ongoing smears against her and call an independent inquiry?

Mr. Speaker, Canadian laws should apply to the Prime Minister just as they do to all Canadians, which means that “no” means “no” for this Prime Minister, just as it does for all Canadians. The former attorney general told the Prime Minister and his team no several times, but they refused to accept her response. When she refused to reverse her decision, the Prime Minister simply relieved her of her duties. Why would the Prime Minister not take “no” as the former attorney general's final answer?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I will be asking for the consent of the House in a moment as I need to give some context to the matter in question and underscore just how serious it is. There are confirmed reports that earlier this week, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek engaged in behaviour that could only be described as that of a bully toward a delegation of representatives from the United Steelworkers. There have been consultations among the parties and I believe that if you seek it, there would be unanimous consent for this motion. I move that the House condemn the inappropriate behaviour of the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, who, according to reports, during a meeting with a delegation of representatives from the United Steelworkers from Hamilton, Ontario, verbally abused the delegation; attempted to physically intimidate them by striking various pieces of furniture and violently slamming his office door; insulted and disparaged the organization, including the retirees of Stelco Inc., and expelled them from his office, and that the House call on the member to give a full and public apology for his unacceptable and unparliamentary behaviour.

Mr. Speaker, on that side no one is standing up for women. While Canadians are fighting for their jobs, the Prime Minister has been busy pressuring the former attorney general to break the law for his rich corporate friends. Imagine if the PMO put all those efforts into standing up for working people. Instead, he invested time and energy into pressuring the former AG to change her mind to help his rich corporate friends.This is about the choices the Liberals make. They will not fight for GM auto workers. They will not fight for steel and aluminum jobs and they failed Sears pensioners. Why will the Liberals not just admit that the middle class and those working hard to join it just do not matter to them?

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. Yesterday at the justice committee, the former attorney general stated that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. Yesterday at committee, the former attorney general confirmed that she had made up her mind. In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way.The job of any prime minister is to stand up for Canadians and Canadian workers. If the Conservatives spent half their time on Canadians rather than on partisan politics, perhaps their record would not show them having the worst growth since the Great Depression.

Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to the meeting held by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Monday, February 25.I understand that the Speaker does not normally become involved with committees, but there are occasions when the Speaker is obliged to intervene, and I will lay out why I believe this situation constitutes such an occasion.First, the Speaker may intervene in cases when committees adopt amendments to bills that go beyond the scope of the bill or require a royal recommendation. The Speaker may intervene as well when committees attempt to operate outside the authority granted to them by the House. My point of order relates to such an occasion.To cite precedent in support of my case, on June 20, 1994, and again on November 7, 1996, the Speaker ruled that: While it is a tradition of this House that committees are masters of their own proceedings, they cannot establish procedures which go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House. I would also refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Standing Order 116(1), which states: In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches. As such, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to examine the following situation and provide a ruling in the context of the two points I have just stated.The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Monday, February 25, was interrupted by votes. The chair suspended the meeting at this point in time. At the time of the suspension, a motion had been moved and was being debated. After, not prior to, gavelling the meeting suspended, the chair indicated that the committee would reconvene after the vote. When members returned to the committee room, we waited some time for the quorum to be met, which never occurred. Finally, the chair decided to leave the room without ever reconvening or ending the meeting.I assumed that the meeting would continue at our next scheduled meeting on Wednesday. Conservative members came to this meeting prepared to continue debate on the motion that was being discussed on Monday, given that the meeting was suspended. To our surprise, the chair informed us that the meeting on Monday had been adjourned, despite the suspended meeting never having been reconvened. I find this unilateral decision of the chair to adjourn a meeting outside a committee meeting and without the support of the committee members to be disturbing and in violation of the rules governing such meetings, and potentially a damaging precedent for future Parliaments.When the committee met again, Conservatives raised a point of order to ask that meeting number 145 continue, as it was suspended and not resumed, and that the member for Brandon—Souris be allowed to resume where he left off. When this request was denied, we challenged the chair's ruling. The ruling was sustained by Liberal members.While I appreciate that in upholding the ruling of the chair, the committee in effect made a decision and that in the normal course of things, it should be left at that. However, on the strength of the Standing Orders, the chair was prohibited from terminating debate, and a committee decision cannot override the House. As I pointed out earlier, committees cannot go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House, and in particular, the committee cannot override Standing Order 116(2).The committee's decision to support the chair's decision to adjourn the meeting outside of a duly called committee meeting without the consent of committee members was, in my view, an attempt to indirectly circumvent the relatively new rule found in subsection 2 of Standing Order 116. Standing Order 116(2) states: (a) Unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House, the Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee may not bring a debate to an end while there are members present who still wish to participate. A decision of the Chair in this regard may not be subject to an appeal to the committee. (b) A violation of paragraph (a) of this section may be brought to the attention of the Speaker by any Member and the Speaker shall have the power to rule on the matter. If, in the opinion of the Speaker, such violation has occurred, the Speaker may order that all subsequent proceedings in relation to the said violation be nullified. The committee brought the debate to an end while the member for Brandon—Souris still had the floor and wanted to continue his remarks, a clear violation of Standing Order 116(2).In addition, I would also argue that the Chair did not have the right to unilaterally adjourn Monday's meeting outside of a duly called committee meeting.To first prove this point, I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to rules pertaining to quorum. With respect to quorum, the rules governing the House are covered in chapter 9 in Bosc and Gagnon. At page 401, it states: If fewer than 20 Members are present, the Speaker may adjourn the House until the next sitting day. The Speaker may take such an initiative only until the moment when he House is called to order; once the sitting has begun, “control over the competence of the House is transferred from the Speaker to the House itself...the Speaker has no right to close a sitting at his own discretion”. Pages 402 and 403 refer to the business before the House at the time quorum was lost. However, should the House adjourn for lack of quorum, any Order of the Day under consideration at the time, with the exception of non-votable items of Private Members’ Business, retains its precedence on the Order Paper for the next sitting. The lack of quorum means only that the House adjourns for the day. I would also argue that the chair of the standing committee went beyond his authority and breached the rules laid down by the House on a number of fronts, specifically the rules respecting the role of the chair and the business before the committee in the absence of quorum and the attempt to circumvent Standing Order 116(2)(a). While the chair of the committee has implied consent to adjourn a meeting and if there is a loss of quorum during the sitting of a meeting, then a meeting can be adjourned. However, if a chair suspends a meeting, then the meeting must reconvene to then adjourn. The chair should not and cannot adjourn a meeting that he has suspended on his own. When committee members questioned him about this on Wednesday, he attempted to quote precedent to justify his decision. However, he falsely quoted precedent. The instance he cited was an instance in which a committee was adjourned through all-party agreement between whips and House leaders on the last day of a sitting that was then prorogued and therefore was in no way congruent to the situation currently at hand. In conclusion, the chair had no right to adjourn a meeting that had never started without the consent of the members, and he had no right to effectively terminate debate on a motion when there were members wishing to participate in said debate. Should this decision of the chair be allowed to stand, it could have very serious consequences on the future democratic nature of committees.I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you nullify all business of the committee that was conducted after the suspension of said meeting and allow the member for Brandon—Souris to continue debating the motion where he left off.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard disturbing testimony from the former attorney general of a coordinated campaign directed by the Prime Minister to obstruct justice. The former attorney general stated that there were communications relevant to getting to the heart of the truth that she cannot speak of because the Prime Minister is silencing her. Enough is enough. It is time for the Prime Minister to immediately lift all solicitor-client privilege and all cabinet confidentiality. Why will he not?

Mr. Speaker, small businesses and workers in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean have been in limbo for months because of the steel and aluminum tariffs. The entire region is waiting for the Prime Minister to do something, but nothing is happening. I guess he is too busy putting pressure on the former attorney general instead of Trump.When friends of the party call, the Prime Minister always picks up. Workers, though, do not have a direct line to his office.Will the Prime Minister admit that he has never been on the side of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and that he works only for friends of the Liberal Party?

Mr. Speaker, we know that the justice committee is looking at this file. We know that members from both sides of the aisle are working together to have witnesses appear. Witnesses are appearing and responding to questions. We also know that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is looking at this file.We, on this side, respect the work of officers of Parliament and we think the commissioner should do his work. We also know on this side that it is the job of any prime minister to defend Canadian jobs. There was a time that the NDP used to fight for jobs and workers. Obviously, those days are gone.That member talks about providing advice. Where was his advice in December 2018 when he was making accusations on—

Mr. Speaker, we know that the members of the justice committee are doing their work. We respect the work of the committee members.We know that the Ethics Commissioner is conducting an investigation and looking into this file. We know that the commissioner can do his work.We believe that we must have confidence in our institutions. We know that Canadians must also have confidence in our institutions.We will let them do their work.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we, on this side of the House, have confidence in the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. They are doing their job. They are calling witnesses, and witnesses are appearing and answering questions.Members on both sides of the House sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We, on this side of the House, are letting those members do their job. However, the Conservatives obviously like to interfere. Nothing has changed since Stephen Harper's time.

Mr. Speaker, advice from my heart to my friends in the Liberal Party: do not dispute the truth of what our former minister of justice has said; do not attempt to question or undermine or impugn her integrity. No one will believe them if they do.What the Liberals must do is tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may, starting with these three steps: call for a public inquiry, release the former minister of justice from restrictions on her evidence and fire the Clerk of the Privy Council office.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with debate at third reading of Bill C-77, the victims bill of rights.Tomorrow we will debate Bill C-83, the administrative segregation legislation, at third reading.For the next two weeks, we will be working with our constituents in our ridings. Upon our return, Monday shall be an allotted day. Tuesday we will start report stage and third reading of Bill C-84, on animal cruelty. At 4 p.m. on Tuesday, the Minister of Finance will present budget 2019. Wednesday will be dedicated to the budget debate.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister declared that the testimony of the former attorney general was false before he had even heard it or read it. Now the Liberal member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon is sullying the name of the member, saying that it is just sour grapes and that it is her father, a respected chief in British Columbia, who is pulling the strings. This is absolutely unacceptable. It is beneath a member of Parliament, who continues to laugh about this.Will the Prime Minister denounce it today?

[Member spoke in Inuktitut][English]Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indigenous Services will be aware that in my riding of Nunavut, there is not one mental health and addictions treatment facility. The need for such a facility has been well documented and is exemplified by the highest rates of suicide in the nation and alcohol and drug addiction. The Government of Nunavut has recognized this need and has identified it as a priority. The previous minister stated in the House that she had heard the call for a treatment centre and looked forward to moving forward with this work. Will the minister commit to funding this much-needed centre?

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will call on the 11 people mentioned in the former attorney general's testimony, and I hope that the Liberals will agree to let those 11 people appear. However, in response to the former attorney general's testimony, the Prime Minister said that he completely disagreed with her when she stated that Gerry Butts told her that there was no solution that did not involve some interference.Does that mean the Prime Minister is disputing what the former attorney general said?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the former attorney general testified to the impact that the anonymous smear campaign had on her and her office, and we saw the Prime Minister come out and supposedly apologize for not speaking out sooner. Now the Liberal member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon is declaring that her statements yesterday were merely sour grapes and that her father was pulling her strings. What disrespect to the former attorney general. Is this the line of the Liberal Party? Will the Liberals apologize for these sexist, misogynist comments?

Mr. Speaker, it is clear the current Prime Minister would go to the moon to avoid answering questions on this issue. In fact, he has so far refused to summon the courage that yesterday the former attorney general demonstrated when she came with copious notes, saved text messages and other documentary evidence proving the veracity of her comments. She exposed a pattern of systematic political interference by the Prime Minister in a criminal prosecution. Will he show the same courage and show up and answer under oath?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and top PMO officials repeatedly allowed political considerations to trump the rule of law. Gerald Butts said, “there is no solution here that does not involve some interference.” Katie Telford said, “we don’t want to debate legalities anymore.” This is shocking. Canadians deserve to hear the full truth, so why does the Prime Minister not simply let her speak?

Mr. Speaker, the illegal and unjust American tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum must be lifted. We are consistently sending this message to the United States, and it is being received.American legislators have asked Ambassador Lighthizer to lift these tariffs. Republican Kevin Brady recently said that the tariffs should be lifted. On Monday, I raised this issue directly with the Vice-President of the United States, Mike Pence.

Mr. Speaker, when the former attorney general resigned in protest of political interference, the Prime Minister said that he was “both surprised and disappointed by her decision to step down” and “she said nothing of that to me”. Yesterday, we learned that she said to him in September, “Are you politically interfering with my role, my decision as the Attorney-General? I would strongly advise against it.”Why did the Prime Minister tell Canadians the opposite of the truth?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister coordinated a sustained effort to politically interfere in a criminal prosecution. He pressured the former attorney general to end the trial of SNC-Lavalin for political reasons. She refused, but he would not take no for answer. As the clerk said to the former attorney general, the Prime Minister was going to “get it done, one way or another”. The Prime Minister has lost the moral authority to govern this country. When will he resign?

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot today from the members opposite about letting the justice committee do its work, but the Liberals on the justice committee said it was a witch hunt. That is absolutely unacceptable. The Prime Minister put his re-election above the judicial system when he cited the Quebec election and that he was an MP from Quebec, when he pressured the former attorney general to drop the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. She said no. As the former Ontario Liberal attorney general has said, interfering with a criminal prosecution is what despots do. Why did the Prime Minister put his personal political interests ahead of the integrity of our government?

It is a feminist government, Mr. Speaker. I remember. It has now been established that the Prime Minister's Office repeatedly pressured the former attorney general. At least 11 individuals, including the Prime Minister himself, engaged her on the subject at least 20 times.Were they doing this for jobs? No. For the economy? No. The revolting answer is that they were doing it for themselves. They were doing it for the Liberal Party of Canada.Adviser Mathieu Bouchard and the Prime Minister made it clear that they were only doing this to get re-elected.Will the Prime Minister drop the spin and admit that the only job he wants to save in Quebec—

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to apologize, without reservation, to the member for Vancouver Granville. My comments were inappropriate. Whether inside or outside this House, it is incumbent on all of us to treat each other with respect at all times.

Mr. Speaker, these questions are for the Prime Minister and he should have the guts to stand and answer for himself.He stands accused of political interference in a criminal case. In one of those meetings, the Clerk of the Privy Council told the former attorney general that this was not about jobs, that this was about a shareholders' meeting that was happening the next Thursday, and that there was an election in Quebec soon.Once again, for the Prime Minister, did he hear those words spoken, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, at the heart of the conversation on women's rights over the last year has been the need to believe women. Yesterday, the former attorney general presented evidence, texts and emails that show a campaign by the Prime Minister to intimidate her into politically influencing the outcome of a criminal corruption investigation. However, the Prime Minister is saying that we should not believe her or her evidence. Why is the Prime Minister telling Canadians that we should believe all women, except his accusers?

Mr. Speaker, it is completely disgusting that the Prime Minister does not have the fortitude to answer these questions himself.Do we want to talk about respect for the rules? I will try another one on the Prime Minister. Gerald Butts, his principal secretary, said to the former attorney general that the statute was set up by Harper, but that he did not like the law. When the Liberals do not like the law, they try to break the law. The only job the Prime Minister was interested in protecting was his own.Does he deny that Gerald Butts said those words, yes or not?

Mr. Speaker, on September 17, I left the Liberal Party because I lost confidence in the current Prime Minister. I know what it is like to trust the Prime Minister and have that trust broken. Canadians have had their trust in the Prime Minister broken. He has lost the moral authority to govern. Will the Prime Minister resign?