Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 151 - 180 of 2763
View Serge Cormier Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Serge Cormier Profile
2019-05-14 14:38 [p.27760]
Mr. Speaker, based on last week's decision, the deputy minister has reviewed the policy in place regarding Vice-Admiral Norman's request to have his legal fees paid as they relate to this case. She gave us her opinion, and we agree with her, so that is how we will proceed.
In addition, General Vance will speak with Vice-Admiral Norman about the next steps at the appropriate time.
I repeat, no other factors were considered in this decision, nor was there any outside contact or influence, political or otherwise, in relation to this charge. We will always respect the judicial process.
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-05-14 15:08 [p.27766]
Mr. Speaker, that case and the SNC-Lavalin controversy have raised questions about interference in our justice system. They have also underscored the need for independent review of decisions made by the director of public prosecutions.
Will the government commit to separate the office of the attorney general from the minister of justice if re-elected?
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, our government firmly believes in the institutions of government and respects them deeply. On this particular issue, we have asked—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, we have asked a former minister of justice and attorney general of Canada, the hon. Anne McLellan, to look into this matter and give us her recommendations. Her track record is impressive, and she understands the various pressures that come along with this position. I look forward to working closely with her to ensure that our government continues to set higher standards for governance.
View Cheryl Gallant Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, veterans and their families deserve better. Since the Liberal Party stole power in the 2015 election, there have been four and a half veterans affairs ministers, including the time the portfolio was reduced to a part-time position. Even the Toronto Star calls the portfolio “a revolving door”, though it seems more like a trap door for government MPs who have fallen in disfavour with the ruling clique, like the former justice minister.
The Liberal Party has traditionally used the veterans portfolio as a dumping ground. Canadians remember all too well when the hapless John McCallum, who sent soldiers to Afghanistan lacking the proper equipment, was dumped out of the defence portfolio and into Veterans Affairs. His mistreatment of veterans landed him with a final reward as ambassador to China. Canadians across the country are paying the price for his failures there.
We know how the current Liberal Party leader feels about veterans after he told a veteran in Edmonton that veterans are asking for too much. That comment is rich coming from the Liberal Party, which gave $10.5 million to convicted terrorist Omar Khadr. All veterans are asking for is what was promised to them.
I know that some Liberal Party MPs, particularly those with prior military service, are in denial when it comes to their government's mistreatment of veterans.
I am now reading into Hansard a letter I received from a veteran, a retired sergeant major, which sums up the feelings of veterans who are contacting my office on a daily basis.
It states, “We're pretty much using the same failing strategy as we did in the mid-1800s. Boots are still an issue and our Navy just 'isn't'—we have some good equipment for the Army because they needed it so desperately when they didn't have it to fight a War we sent our troops to.
“The RCAF has just purchased museum quality jets from Australia and the Canadian Government tried to railroad a Vice Admiral for doing his job.
“We don't contribute our share to NATO and try our best to annoy the strongest democratic country on the planet and our closest neighbour just for good measure.
“The legacy of the injured from Afghanistan and the unit designed to transition them (the Joint Personnel Support Unit [JPSU]) has been the cause of incredible stress among injured and transitioning military families, only getting to its functional point in a year or so—six years after the conclusion of hostilities.
“The current Government and Canadian Armed Forces leadership is acting like all the adults left Parliament Hill for the weekend and they have taken it upon themselves to run the levers of Government in their absence.
“Not knowing what they're doing, they are making an incredible mess of things while having a jolly great time of it, but this one particular Mess with our Country's Defences must be corrected—now.
“Too many people have given their futures for this beautiful Country and its people—it's time to respect their sacrifice by not allowing another circumstance to swallow another generation in the absence of adults.”
On behalf of Canadians, I thank the sergeant major for his service to our country.
I asked a question in question period, which the leader of the Liberal Party was too ashamed to answer. How many taxpayer dollars were wasted wrongly prosecuting an innocent man, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman?
View Serge Cormier Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Serge Cormier Profile
2019-05-14 17:22 [p.27784]
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the adjournment debate this evening. My colleague raised the issue of Mr. Norman's case. As the member knows, based on last week's decision, the charges against Vice-Admiral Norman have been stayed.
As confirmed by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada last week, every decision was made completely independently. As the PPSC also indicated, no other factors were considered in this decision, nor was there any contact or influence from outside the PPSC, including political influence in either the initial decision to prosecute Mr. Norman or in the decision to stay the charge. Any accusation to the contrary is absurd.
The only other thing I will say on the matter is that, also based on last week's decision, the deputy minister has reviewed the policy in place regarding the request to have his legal fees paid as they relate to this case. She provided us with her opinion, and we agree with her. In addition, General Vance will speak with Mr. Norman about what comes next.
Since my colleague raised the topic of taxpayer dollars, I want her to know that our government is committed to having the care for our women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces at the core of everything we do. After a decade of cuts under the Harper Conservatives, we are delivering results for our women and men in uniform and their families.
Some of our measures include tax-free income for members deployed on international operations, $155 million to safeguard the digital privacy and security of Canadians, $198 million to improve access to health care and implement a joint suicide prevention strategy, and $6 million per year in new funding to military family resource centres, which means more child care hours. I had the opportunity to visit one of those centres in my province, New Brunswick, and they do amazing work. I thank them for the work they do for our men and women in uniform.
Our government is re-engaging on the world stage and getting our women and men in uniform the equipment they need. That is why budget 2019 is supporting important measures for our Canadian Armed Forces, namely close to $19 million in support of Canadian Armed Forces members transitioning over to civilian life.
Unlike the previous government, which cut defence funding, our government is returning Canada to a leadership role internationally. We are achieving this through our defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”. We have committed to increasing defence spending by more than 70% over the next 10 years. That is in stark contrast to the Conservatives' record.
Unlike the previous government, which repeatedly cut funding to the military, and unlike the Leader of the Opposition's most recent vision, which is, as usual, without specifics, our government has rigorously costed its policy at more than $32 billion.
What is disappointing, however, is how the Conservatives have repeatedly voted against making the funding available to implement our policy and provide the Canadian Armed Forces with the resources they need. The Conservatives spent dozens of hours voting against funding the very operations we send our members of the Canadian Armed Forces on.
Despite Conservative voting against funding its protection, Canadians can continue to rely on our strong electoral process, and a strong military.
In closing, I would like to thank the members of the Canadian Armed Forces for the work they do every day for Canadians.
View Cheryl Gallant Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, how many taxpayer dollars were wasted wrongly prosecuting an innocent man, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman?
Considering the fact that Vice-Admiral Norman was forced to rack up nearly half a million dollars in legal fees to defend himself, I have no doubt that millions were wasted on the Liberal Party's witch hunt of an honourable gentleman. The money wasted should have been used to meet the government's obligation to a veteran, retired Warrant Officer Roger Perreault, for the critical injury benefit he deserves for injuries sustained serving his country in Afghanistan. Veterans and their families deserve better.
View Serge Cormier Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Serge Cormier Profile
2019-05-14 17:27 [p.27784]
Madam Speaker, as we have said over and over, no other factors were considered in this decision, nor was there any outside contact or influence, political or otherwise. Based on the decision, the deputy minister has reviewed the policy in place regarding Vice-Admiral Norman's request to have his legal fees paid for as it relates to this case. We will take her advice.
It makes me chuckle to hear a Conservative member talk about helping veterans, since we know just how much the Conservatives cut from veterans services. They shut down offices that provided support to veterans, and they slashed budgets at the Department of National Defence. That is the complete opposite of what we are doing.
We are reinvesting in the men and women of our Canadian Armed Forces. Our defence policy puts our men and women in uniform first and provides unprecedented investments. This is in stark contrast to the previous government, which repeatedly cut funding and left the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces out in the cold.
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-05-14 17:51 [p.27788]
Mr. Chair, I will be using my entire 15 minutes on questions to the minister.
Has the minister brought a proposal to cabinet to give a deferred prosecution agreement to SNC-Lavalin, yes or no?
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, as the hon. member knows, because the matter is under appeal, that is not a question I will answer because of litigation privilege and the sub judice rule.
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-05-14 17:52 [p.27788]
Mr. Chair, has the minister begun the process to issue a directive under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act to override the decision of the director of public prosecutions in this matter?
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, my answer is the same. Anything that I can say in the House may have an impact on the proceedings before the Federal Court of Appeal.
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-05-14 17:52 [p.27788]
Mr. Chair, have any of the minister's staff members provided any employee of SNC-Lavalin with assurances that he ensured it would receive a deferred prosecution agreement prior to the election, yes or no?
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-05-14 17:53 [p.27789]
Mr. Chair, I am asking the minister whether he or a member of his staff or any members of the Prime Minister's Office, now or in the future, have ever told anybody who works with or for SNC-Lavalin that it will get a deferred prosecution agreement eventually, more specifically, before the election?
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, it is absurd to project into the future what people might or might not say. I can speak for myself and say that I have never had such conversations or given such an assurance.
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-05-14 17:53 [p.27789]
Mr. Chair, moving on to issues from this afternoon, in question period today the Prime Minister indicated, “We continue to respect the independence of the judiciary. We always will. Measures were brought forward against the vice-admiral at the direction of the chief of the defence staff.”
Could the minister let us know whether the chief of the defence staff ordered the RCMP to lay charges?
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, I do not know the answer to that question. I do know that the RCMP conducts its own independent investigations and that the director of public prosecutions undertakes those prosecutions and, in this case, ordered the stay. It was before my time as Attorney General. I do not know the precise instigation for that.
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-05-14 17:54 [p.27789]
Mr. Chair, further to questions regarding the RCMP, today two members of the RCMP indicated that they would “like to get the totality of the information and do a proper analysis.” In other words, they are asking for certain information to be passed to them from the federal prosecution service.
Will the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada discuss this matter with the federal prosecution service?
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, the prosecution service is independent of my office, and I will not speculate on an article that appears in the newspaper.
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-05-14 17:55 [p.27789]
Mr. Chair, it is more than an article that appears in the newspaper. This is a quote from the RCMP and in it the RCMP is indicating that it wishes to go back and take a look at the information that was levelled with respect to the charges against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.
As a result, I am wondering if the minister can let us know whether he still believes this case is closed, given that the RCMP wants to go back and investigate further.
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, the RCMP does not take instructions on whether to lay a charge or not. It works entirely independently of my office.
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-05-14 17:55 [p.27789]
Mr. Chair, I would like to know from the minister whether he received a section 13 notice prior to the director of public prosecutions and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada staying the charges against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, that would be privileged information. It would be solicitor-client privilege. That is the way we have normally treated section 13 notices. What I can say for the hon. member, as I have stated in the House, and I know she was listening attentively, is that this case was prosecuted under the Criminal Code and the attorney general who was responsible for the prosecution was actually the attorney general for Ontario.
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-05-14 17:56 [p.27789]
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the clarification. I am wondering, though, if the minister can illuminate us. Is he saying that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada was not provided a section 13 notice pursuant to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act on the staying of the charges against Mark Norman?
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, under section 13 of the act, the director of public prosecutions can, in this case and at her discretion, issue such a notice to the Attorney General of Canada when a case is in the national interest.
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-05-14 17:57 [p.27789]
That is actually not the quote, Mr. Chair. What the act actually says is that it is when the case will attract great public interest. I can think of no case that has attracted more public interest, other than SNC-Lavalin, than the case of Mark Norman.
Once again, could the minister tell me whether the director of public prosecutions provided a section 13 notice. I might as well go further to tell him what I am driving at. I would like to know whether cabinet discussed the section 13 notice under the umbrella of the Attorney General of Canada seeking advice from his colleagues.
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-05-14 17:58 [p.27789]
Mr. Chair, at the end of a press conference with respect to the staying of charges with respect to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, counsel actually said the following, which I would like to read if I may:
There are lots of questions that need to be asked and answered about this whole process the last couple of years. And I think some people who have been involved in this need to reflect on what happened and why it happened and their role in it.
Would the minister agree that it is appropriate for him to order a commission of inquiry within his department pursuant to the Inquiries Act?
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, I have received a breakdown of how the justice department dealt with the third party orders for documents. I am satisfied, and the court appeared to be satisfied, that we met our obligations in that regard.
Results: 151 - 180 of 2763 | Page: 6 of 93

|<
<
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data