Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 of 815
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2019-06-19 14:39 [p.29387]
Mr. Speaker, obviously, the Conservatives are struggling for questions to ask, because they keep returning to this approach. It did not work for them before. It is really a sign of desperation as we head to meet with Canadians and talk about our plan for the next four years.
We have worked to create over a million new jobs in this country. We have delivered in lifting hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of poverty. We are continuing to demonstrate what leadership on the environment, leadership on the international file and reconciliation with indigenous peoples look like. That is something the Conservatives have a lot of difficulty with.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
View Alain Rayes Profile
2019-06-19 14:41 [p.29388]
Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the SNC-Lavalin affair and Vice-Admiral Norman.
The Prime Minister tried to cancel Davie's contract to help his Liberal Party friends. The Prime Minister did everything in his power to destroy the reputation of Vice-Admiral Norman, an honest and conscientious man of integrity, just as he did to the former justice minister and the former president of the Treasury Board.
Why did the Prime Minister try to ruin the careers of these honest people who simply wanted to stand up for the interests of Canadians?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2019-06-19 14:41 [p.29388]
Mr. Speaker, this fall, Canadians will have a clear choice to make. They can vote for a party that protects the environment, creates economic growth and shows respect for Canadians by lifting hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty and putting Canada back on the international stage, or they can vote for the Conservative Party, which learned nothing from the Harper government's failures, continues to make divisive personal attacks, and continues to focus on me while we are focusing on Canadians.
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2019-06-19 14:45 [p.29388]
Once again, Mr. Speaker, on this last day of Prime Minister's question period, the members opposite are choosing to make personal attacks and not talk about the things that actually deeply matter to Canadians.
I will highlight that during these Prime Minister question periods, I have taken over 3,200 questions from the members opposite, including 237 different MPs. Mr. Harper, during his last term as prime minister, took only 1,400 from about 34 MPs. We know that greater accountability, greater opportunity to participate in debate—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2019-06-12 15:15 [p.28996]
Mr. Speaker, once again, the opposition leader is doubling down on misleading Canadians. It shows that the Conservatives are still following the Harper playbook.
We put him on notice because he and his party have a history of making false and defamatory statements. That is what he did in December against the Minister of Innovation, where he was forced to swallow his false words and retract his statements. We will not stand by while he misleads Canadians again.
While the members of the opposition are focused on me, we will stay focused on Canadians.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2019-06-04 12:52 [p.28483]
Mr. Speaker, again, not to sound narcissistic, but if we are going to talk, there should be people here to listen.
We are here today to debate the government's bill, which would implement the main measures of the budget. Budgets are highly technical and theoretical, but this gives us a chance to really dig deep.
My first observation is about the budget, as introduced by the minister, election promises and the format of the bill, which is 370 pages long and covers many topics that have nothing to do with the budget. This is called an omnibus bill.
I will remind members that four years ago, back in 2015, the Liberals made a promise. During the election campaign, they made several promises to Canadians in order to get elected. These promises were scrapped, however. The fourth paragraph on page 30 of their election platform states the following:
We will not resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny.
[The former prime minister] has used prorogation to avoid difficult political circumstances. We will not.
[The former prime minister] has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals.
This is exactly what we are debating today. Today we are debating an omnibus bill into which the government inserted measures that have nothing to do with the budget. Four years ago, the Liberals promised not to do this, but they did it anyway.
Must I remind the House that, at around the same time last year, we were all here studying the previous budget implementation bill? The government had slipped in a dozen or so pages of legal provisions to allow companies facing prosecution for corruption, among other charges, to sign separate agreements. These provisions were not properly debated by parliamentarians. The Senate asked the minister to testify, but he refused.
That is what gave rise to the SNC-Lavalin scandal. Last year's bill included a process to allow for separate trials or agreements. That led to the director of public prosecutions' decision to proceed to trial on September 4. Ten days later, the former attorney general agreed to this proposal, and that is when partisan politics seeped into the legal process. That is what later led the former attorney general and the former president of the Treasury Board to be booted out of the Liberal caucus for having stood up and told Canadians the truth.
I am talking about this sad episode in Canadian democracy precisely because what we have before us today is a government that was elected under false promises, a government that promised the moon and sought to be pure as the driven snow but, in the end, did not keep its promises. That is essentially it. We have an omnibus bill.
Now let us talk about what is really going on with this bill, the government's budget implementation bill. What is the deal with this budget? Once again, we must not forget that the Liberals got themselves elected on the basis of budget promises they most certainly did not keep. The last paragraph on page 76 of the Liberal Party platform mentions the planning framework, the budgeting framework. It says right there in black and white:
With the Liberal plan, the federal government will have a modest short-term deficit of less than $10 billion in each of the next two fiscal years....
The platform also stated that the deficit would decline in the third year and that Canada would return to a balanced budget in 2019-20.
That was the promise that got the Liberals elected. Their bold but not-so-brilliant idea was to make a solemn pledge to run small deficits and eliminate the deficit entirely in 2019-20. That deadline has arrived, and what happened? Those modest deficits ballooned into three big deficits in excess of $70 billion. This is 2019-20, the year they were supposed to get rid of the deficit, but instead, this year's deficit is $19.8 billion.
Twice now I have asked the Minister of Tourism and the Liberal member for Surrey-Centre, if I remember correctly, to tell me the amount of this year’s deficit. They can never come up with the simple and yet very serious figure of $19.8 billion. How can we trust these people who get elected by promising, hand on heart, that they will generate only small deficits and zero deficit in 2019, when they generated three large deficits plus a huge one on the year they were meant to deliver a zero deficit?
What the Liberals fail to understand is that a deficit is a bill that our children and grandchildren will have to pay. A deficit today is a tax tomorrow. It will have to be paid sooner or later. Why did this happen? Because we are living beyond our means.
I would like to remind the House that, historically speaking, deficits are permitted under special conditions. You will remember that we ran deficits during the war. We had to defeat the Nazi menace. We will soon be celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Normandy landings on June 6. It was not until Prime Minister Louis Saint-Laurent that fiscal balance was restored, and I am not just saying that because I happen to represent the riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent.
It was in the early 1970s, under the Liberal government led by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the current Prime Minister’s father, that we began running deficits in times of prosperity.
It was unfortunate for the Canadian economy. Indeed, fast forward 50 years and the son of the prime minister who ran deficits in times of growth is doing exactly the same thing, running four huge deficits in a period of rapid global economic expansion.
I truly have a great deal of respect and esteem for the Minister of Finance, as I do for all those who run for election and offer their services to Canadians and who, proud of their personal experience, wish to put it to good use. The Minister of Finance had a stellar career on Bay Street. We might even call him a Bay Street baron for having administered his family’s fortune so well. When he was head of the family company, Morneau Shepell, he never ran deficits.
When he was in the private sector, the Minister of Finance never ran a deficit, but since he moved to the public sector, since he has been using taxpayer money, since he has been using money that belongs to Canadian workers, he has been running back-to-back deficits.
How many have there been? There have been one, two, three, four budgets, and there have been one, two, three, four deficits. Four out of four, that is the grand slam of mismanaged public funds, while, in the private sector, he was a model money manager, an example to be followed.
To say the least, he is now neither a model or an example to be followed. Generating deficits during periods of economic growth is the ultimate heresy. No serious economist will tell you that this is a good time to generate a deficit. Quite the contrary, when the economic cycle picks up, it is time to put money aside.
They were very lucky. When they were elected, they took over the G7 country with the best economic track record. When we were in power, we were so intent on serious and rigorous management that we were the first G7 country to recover from the great crisis of 2008-12. That was thanks to the informed and rigorous management of the late Hon. Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, and Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. These people inherited the best economic situation among the G7 nations, as well as a $2.5 billion budget surplus, which will not be the case in five months if Canadians choose us to form the next government.
Worse still, in the past four years, they have taken advantage of the sensational global economic growth and, of course, the economic strength of the United States, which has been experiencing growth for several years. What did they do with it? They made a huge mess of things, and the monstrous deficits they have been running these past four years will be handed down to our children and grandchildren to pay in the future.
That is why we are strongly opposed to this bill, which flies in the face of two election promises: to do away with omnibus bills, and to only run small deficits before balancing the budget in 2019.
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
View Luc Berthold Profile
2019-06-03 16:46 [p.28431]
Mr. Speaker, advertising is open and transparent. Anyone can see where the government places ads. With this process, people will not know how decisions were made, nor will they be able to find out who did not get a media fund contribution. That gives the government way more power to influence the media than it should have. That is the problem.
If there is no list, if we have no way of knowing who applied and who was turned down, it will be very easy for the government to favour the most accommodating media organizations. Who will pay the price? Journalists, unfortunately. Because of this government's bad decisions, journalists will be under pressure. Public trust in journalists will be shaken. People behind closed doors will have made decisions that affect them, decisions they have absolutely no say in.
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the Liberals polled Canadians about remediation agreements months before hiding the measure in the 2018 omnibus bill. Apparently Canadians across the country see these agreements as a get-out-of-jail-free card for corrupt and criminal corporate executives. The Liberals did not have public support for these agreements.
Is that why the Minister of Finance hid the measure in his bill at the last minute?
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have learned. Opinion polls showed that Canadians did not agree with protecting corrupt criminals.
The former attorney general also understood that adding remediation agreements to the omnibus bill at the last minute was just a ploy to protect the government's friends at SNC-Lavalin. We are all aware of the Prime Minister's political interference and months-long pressure campaign against her.
Now we want to know why the Prime Minister is being so dishonest with Canadians.
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2019-05-29 15:11 [p.28225]
Mr. Speaker, in this time of misinformation and fake news and populism, the opposition leader is doubling down on misleading Canadians. It shows that he is still following Stephen Harper's playbook. We put him on notice, because he and his party have a history of making false and defamatory statements. That is what he did in December against the Minister of Innovation. He was forced to swallow his words and retract his statements. We will not stand by while he tries to mislead Canadians again.
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my speech with this thought: a government that is constantly embroiled in scandal cannot be effective. That is why we need to examine Bill C-98 at the last minute.
I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-98, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act.
This bill renames the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP. It would henceforth be known as the “public complaints and review commission”. It would also be responsible for reviewing complaints filed by the public against the Canada Border Services Agency.
This bill delivers on a Liberal campaign promise that there would be an oversight body for all Canadian law enforcement agencies. The Prime Minister will then be able to say that he kept the promise he made in 2015. However, the only thing the Prime Minister will be able to do is claim that he kept his promise.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was just practically on his knees begging the opposition to hurry up and pass the bill. The end of this Parliament is quickly approaching, and it will obviously be impossible to get the job done properly. Unfortunately for the Liberals, they will be unable to keep their promise because they did not manage their time properly.
We are not opposed to Bill C-98, but there is still work to do. Right now, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is stretched to the limit because, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned, it is currently examining a number of public-safety-related bills. The committee is still studying C-93. I do not see how the committee will be able to examine Bill C-98 on top of everything else it still has to do.
We need to get serious if we want the job to get done properly. The problem the Canada Border Services Agency is currently dealing with was caused by the Prime Minister's infamous tweet of January 2017. The Auditor General looked into the matter and, regardless of what the government says, he confirmed that the Prime Minister's tweet resulted in a huge influx of people at the border. Nearly 40,000 people have crossed our border illegally over the past two years. That has caused major problems for border officers on the ground and for the Canada Border Services Agency, which has had to deploy an incredible number of resources. They are still permanently deployed to Roxham Road.
The border management system is overloaded, and that is causing problems. Our border officers are doing their best. However, this type of situation, which was created by the Prime Minister, sometimes makes it difficult for them to do their job properly because of the higher-than-normal volume of border crossers.
The government is having a hard time making progress because it has to deal with scandal after scandal. We cannot forget the infamous trip to India, when the Prime Minister made Canada a laughingstock for a week. We never understood, and still do not understand, why the Prime Minister brought his wife and kids on that totally meaningless trip. Canada was humiliated, and that is what sparked the scandal. In India, the Prime Minister was photographed with a known terrorist who spent time in prison and was the invited guest of our government. The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security had to spend a lot of time managing that file and had to meet with former national security adviser Daniel Jean.
Sometimes the government wants to rush things. The Liberals tell Canadians that they are there for them, but let's not forget what happened in the past three and a half years.
Quebeckers will not forget what the Liberals did to Davie. Today, both Liberal MPs from the Quebec City area are claiming that they awarded a $700-million contract to Davie, but the opposite is true. The PMO's first decision was to do everything it could to cancel the contract given to Davie by the Conservative government in July 2015.
The news spread. Fortunately, as a result of the pressure we applied, the government finally signed the contract. Technically, this government gave Davie the contract, but it was the Conservatives who awarded it. Let us remember that the Liberals did everything they could to cancel it. Fortunately, they failed. Had the Prime Minister succeeded, 1,000 jobs at Davie shipyard, in the Quebec City area, would have been at risk.
The Liberals are now trying to smooth things over. They are trying to find contracts so they can say that they are looking after Davie and they believe in the company. However, we must never forget what happened. Let's never forget that Vice-Admiral Norman, Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, paid the price for the government's political games. His career was destroyed.
This unbelievable mess has been playing out for three and a half years. Now, the Liberals are asking us to support Bill C-98. They are telling us that this is very urgent, and they are asking us to help them get this done before the end of their term.
Why should I rush and cut corners, like they do all the time? Why should the NDP cut corners? Why should we agree to help the government, which does what it wants and now needs our help?
There are certain things that could be done for the benefit of Canadians, but in this case, I see no need. They waited four years to act. On October 22, the new Conservative government will be able to get this done right.
The worst part is that we actually support Bill C-98. It is an administrative measure that is consistent with our complaint handling system. We have no problem supporting it. What we do have a problem with is the government's approach. We are certainly not about to run interference for a government that has lurched from one scandal to another and has tried in various ways to hurt Quebec, my home province. As I said, we are certainly not about to cut corners to help them.
Another issue is that Bill C-98 is being introduced to allow members of the public to file complaints about services provided by the Canada Border Services Agency. As I said at the beginning of my speech, if there are any problems with our officers in the field, it is because the Prime Minister did not help the situation. He created a huge problem, and for the past two years, it has been utter chaos.
The agency does everything it possibly can to keep our borders safe. We certainly do not want to suggest that we need to pass this bill quickly so that people can file complaints against our CBSA officers. That would send the wrong message.
The message we do want to send is that there are so many problems related to officers that people need to be able to file a complaint, and if any officers are having problems, if they are having difficulty doing their jobs, it is because of this government's decisions and the way in which it is managing our country and our borders.
We are not willing to cut corners. We are not willing to concede that this is such an urgent matter that we need to cancel the committee meetings that are already under way and set aside the other bills being studied in order to fast-track this one.
There is another reason we cannot get on board with this even though we support the principle of Bill C-98. For two years, every time we asked questions about the border, they hurled every insult in the book at us. They called us racist and accused us of fearmongering. They said we slashed budgets by $300 million and blamed us for management and resource problems, but the reports my colleague found put the lie to that. Yes, there was rationalization. Yes, there were changes at CBSA under the Conservative government, but it was all at the administrative level and had no impact whatsoever on the work of front-line officers.
On the contrary, one important decision the Conservatives made at the time was to bring back land border offices. Before that, there was a night officer on duty, which is crazy when you consider the kind of danger that poses to officer safety. Now there are always at least two people at each post. The Conservatives also decided to arm customs officers.
Conservatives do not just talk about security; we take concrete steps to ensure security. The laws we passed to crack down on criminals were undone by the Liberals.
I can support the bill, but I cannot support a government that says one thing and does another, a government that attacks us for trying to earn back the esteem of Canadians, while everyone knows that the problems we are having are due to this government's mistakes and terrible decisions.
I would not want Canada Border Services Agency officers to hear that we need to pass this bill right away in order to allow people to file complaints against them when the union has not even been consulted. The union should at least have been consulted. The Liberals had four years to get their ducks in a row. They did not even bother to consult the union to say that they were moving in this direction. There was no consultation. These are the things we have a hard time understanding.
As an hon. NDP member said in his question, given the vast resources at the government's disposal, it is hard to believe that the task was simply too daunting. It is obvious that this is a simple administrative measure, and a carbon copy of the one involving the RCMP, to boot. As such, I believe this is all just political rhetoric in an attempt to once again rush through an important bill.
A few weeks before the end of the parliamentary session, the Liberals are trying to make Canadians believe that passing Bill C-98 is a national emergency, when that is not true. They did nothing for four years. There was another national emergency yesterday but now it seems to have passed. Now there is a new emergency, and this bill has to pass in a hurry so the opposition needs to be on board.
That is not going to work. There are times when we are willing to collaborate, but we will not be made fools of. There is no cause to treat the official opposition, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois or the Leader of the Green Party like fools. Let us be professional. No one can claim that this file was handled in a professional manner. It was bungled from the start.
What is more, we know very well how this works. Even if we wanted to hastily push the bill through, it still has to go through the regular legislative process and all that that entails. Bill C-93 is still being examined in committee. It is technically impossible to complete the study of the bill in committee, send it to the Senate and have it passed there in the few weeks that remain in the session. It would take until August to complete the process properly.
The government messed up in the case of Bill C-98. The Liberals were unable to get the job done properly in the time allotted. Rather than being professional, this government has been caught up in scandal after scandal. It lost a tremendous amount of time because the Prime Minister was not and is still not ready to govern. Even if we support Bill C-98, it is not so urgent that we need to skip any steps. I am asking the government to do the job properly if it wants the official opposition to co-operate.
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, the RCMP is an independent body and chooses to investigate and gather evidence on its own, independently of government sources.
With respect to documents, our government fulfilled all requests to the court for third party records applications. In fact, we put together a process with the court to ensure that those documents could be identified and then screened, ultimately by the judge in question. We fulfilled all of our obligations and we were cited by the court for having done so.
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the Prime Minister desperately wanted to find a scapegoat for the cabinet involving the Davie case.
Twice, the Prime Minister stated publicly, before the end of the investigation, that Vice-Admiral Norman would be charged. The Liberals withheld evidence from the RCMP, the Attorney General and Mr. Norman's defence team.
To make matters worse, the Prime Minister said publicly that the RCMP acted independently.
Does the Prime Minister realize that his actions toward this great military man constitute a serious abuse of power befitting a police state?
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I will take no lessons from the parliamentary secretary.
In the SNC-Lavalin affair, they tried to lecture us on the law. It is one corruption scandal after the next with this government. We are not making any of this up. According to this morning's Globe and Mail—and I think it was on the front page, so I am sure they checked their facts—it was the Prime Minister who had a little temper tantrum, like a spoiled kid, and wanted to involve the RCMP. That is what the Prime Minister did regarding the Davie shipyard matter.
Since when can a Prime Minister direct the RCMP to investigate a matter because he is upset about something? That is not how it works.
Why did the Liberal members on the committee refuse—
View Sylvie Boucher Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, with little to speak of in terms of achievements over the past four years, the Prime Minister is racking up scandals and appalling behaviour from members of his entourage.
By promoting Ben Chin, the staffer who tried to circumvent the rule of law in the SNC-Lavalin scandal, the Prime Minister is confirming that he endorses this kind of totally unacceptable behaviour.
How would the Prime Minister explain to Canadians why such behaviour was rewarded with a promotion rather than a dismissal?
View Jacques Gourde Profile
CPC (QC)
View Jacques Gourde Profile
2019-05-17 11:31 [p.28002]
Mr. Speaker, one of the key players in the SNC-Lavalin scandal was a minister's chief of staff who also did everything he could to get the attorney general of Canada and her employees to bend the law. He was even brazen enough to threaten them.
The more crooked one is, the better chance they have of moving up in the Liberal Party. Why does the Liberal government reward those who interfere in the judicial process?
View Michel Boudrias Profile
BQ (QC)
View Michel Boudrias Profile
2019-05-17 12:04 [p.28009]
Mr. Speaker, that is just a sham and a gong show.
I want to move on to something else. Vice-Admiral Norman is the victim of both the Conservatives' pettiness and the Liberal government's incompetence. The Conservatives hid the fact that they mandated Admiral Norman to talk to Davie about the Asterix so that they could continue their partisan attacks at his expense—and at the expense of Davie, in particular. The Liberals are no better. They referred this matter to the RCMP, as if it were no big deal, without checking and validating the facts, which is what led to this shameful investigation. The entire Canadian establishment is now implicated.
Will the government launch a public inquiry to get to the bottom of the situation regarding Admiral Norman and the contracts—
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the RCMP conducts its own investigations.
The decision to collect evidence and to go see the Public Prosecution Service was made completely independently from the government. The PPSC is another institution that is completely independent from government.
If the opposition members had any relevant information, they should have given it to the RCMP long before this.
View Diane Lebouthillier Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, Canadians can have full confidence in the independence of our institutions. We supported the motion this week to recognize Vice-Admiral Mark Norman for his service and apologize to him and his family. We are waiting to hear from the chief of defence staff and the Canadian Armed Forces to find out what the next steps are. We know that a process was followed, and, unlike the Conservatives, we on this side of the House have confidence in our institutions.
View Diane Lebouthillier Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, the committees operate independently of the government, and we will wait for the results of their deliberations.
Regarding the legal process involving Vice-Admiral Norman, when it stayed the charge, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada noted that 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 and baseless.
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, at the November 2015 cabinet meeting, did the minister, who is from Quebec, support the idea of trying to cancel the contract for the Asterix, whose virtues she is extolling today?
That was the first cabinet meeting and the first decision cabinet made. Luckily, things did not go as planned.
Can the minister explain the coordinated operation against Admiral Norman to destroy him and prevent him from doing his job, which was to support the project, to the best of his ability?
View Diane Lebouthillier Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, as a result of last week's decision, the charges against Vice-Admiral Norman were stayed.
As the Public Prosecution Service of Canada confirmed last week, all decisions were made completely independently.
No other factors were considered in this decision, nor was there any any contact or influence from outside the PPSC, including political influence in either the initial decision to prosecute Mr. Norman or the decision to stay the charge.
Allegations to the contrary are completely absurd.
View Richard Martel Profile
CPC (QC)
View Richard Martel Profile
2019-05-16 14:34 [p.27948]
Mr. Speaker, by the way, we were the ones who awarded the contract, not them.
The Asterix is resounding success. It was delivered by Davie on time and on budget. Last night, the Minister of National Defence was unable to confirm when the Royal Canadian Navy could count on getting a second supply ship. He also confirmed that he endorsed the decision by the chief of the defence staff to suspend Vice-Admiral Norman.
Why did the Liberal government not support the man who was defending the Royal Canadian Navy?
View Sylvie Boucher Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance's chief of staff became directly involved in the SNC-Lavalin corruption scandal, the Liberals did not admonish him. They rewarded him and gave him a promotion.
Now we learn that he threatened the staff of the former attorney general and tried to subvert the rule of law.
Why does this Prime Minister reward those who do his dirty work and fire those who stand up to him?
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, the minister may claim that the case is closed, but the facts speak for themselves.
The Prime Minister has done everything he can to hide the truth. He withheld documents Norman's defence counsel needed to make its case. A court order had to be issued. He also knew full well that code words were being used to conceal Vice-Admiral Norman's identity and get around access to information requests.
Despite the ample evidence provided to him and to Canadians, the Prime Minister is still refusing to apologize to Vice-Admiral Norman and his family. Why?
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when we asked the Prime Minister to apologize to Vice-Admiral Norman, he refused to do so. It is possible that he does not want to apologize because he does not think he needs to, but it is also possible that he is disappointed because his plan to destroy Vice-Admiral Norman did not work out.
One way or another, the Prime Minister will have to be accountable. Why not show goodwill and apologize to Vice-Admiral Norman immediately?
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2019-05-15 14:35 [p.27831]
Yes, Mr. Speaker, let us talk about respect for the judicial process in this case. Twice the Prime Minister said that Vice-Admiral Norman would end up in court, even before charges were brought. That was the first mistake.
The second was that the Prime Minister's Office withheld as much information as possible until a court ordered it to disclose this information, which was needed for the accused to make full answer and defence. That is political interference.
Will the Liberal government and its Prime Minister do what all Canadians want and issue a genuine, formal apology to Vice-Admiral Norman?
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2019-05-15 14:36 [p.27831]
Mr. Speaker, one of the most comical things the Prime Minister ever said was that he did not need a political lieutenant because he is a general. What a general, indeed.
Let us talk about a real soldier, an honourable soldier: Vice-Admiral Norman. Unlike some, he is devoted to his career. Unlike some, this is a man who commands respect.
Could the Prime Minister act like a statesman and apologize?
Could he try bringing Canadians together instead of playing general?
View Jacques Gourde Profile
CPC (QC)
View Jacques Gourde Profile
2019-05-15 14:55 [p.27835]
Mr. Speaker, in the SNC-Lavalin corruption scandal, we saw how two former Liberal ministers were treated when they tried to ensure respect for the rule of law.
A Liberal minister's chief of staff did his best to intervene in the process. He was promoted even though he, too, tried to direct the former attorney general in the SNC-Lavalin case and even threatened his staff.
Can the Prime Minister explain why all someone has to do to get a promotion in the Liberal government is to obstruct justice?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2019-05-14 14:18 [p.27757]
Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember where this file started. On the eve of the 2015 election, Conservatives decided to rush through a half-billion-dollar, sole-sourced project. We wanted to ensure that we did our own due diligence on this decision with the new federal cabinet. That is exactly what we did.
In regard to documents, the government met all of its obligations with respect to the third party records applications. The PMO provided all documents that responded to the subpoenas directly to the Privy Council Office, which determined the relevancy and suggested redactions. This was all subject to approval—
Results: 1 - 30 of 815 | Page: 1 of 28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data