Interventions in the House of Commons
RSS feed based on search criteria Export search results - CSV (plain text) Export search results - XML
Add search criteria
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2019-05-27 19:16 [p.28104]
Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to follow up on a question that was asked some time ago.
Just for context, the original question had to do with an SNC-Lavalin executive who was convicted of having been part of a major fraud scandal that involved funnelling money into the coffers of the Liberal Party of Canada. It was only a day or two after I asked this question in the House that The Globe and Mail broke a story about allegations of inappropriate political pressure coming out of the Prime Minister's Office on the attorney general of the day in order to drop criminal charges in favour of a DPA for SNC-Lavalin. There has been a lot of water under the bridge since that question was initially asked.
Given all the context and the history we have seen over the last number of months on the SNC file and the fact that the government has still refused to say that it will not give a deferred prosecution agreement and given everything that has happened, it makes perfect sense for the government to say that until there has been a public inquiry into the allegations of political interference by the PMO into the SNC-Lavalin affair, it will not grant a deferred prosecution agreement to that company.
As I said, when I originally asked the question, it had to do with an SNC-Lavalin executive who broke the fundraising rules. A lot has happened on that file since. I think Canadians would find it reassuring to hear the government say that until there has been a proper independent public inquiry into what went on in that case, a deferred prosecution agreement will not be granted. Will the government make that commitment?
Result: 1 - 1 of 1