Karine Trudel

[Privilege, March 18th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, as deputy House leader of the NDP, I want to add a few words to the comments made by my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby.

During question period on February 7, the Minister of Justice started his answers with a very weak attempt to cover himself by saying, “as the Prime Minister said earlier today”. The Minister of Justice repeated this phrase 11 times. Do not be fooled. This cautious language is meant only to protect the Prime Minister and the minister. It in no way changes the matter at hand.

The minister and parliamentary secretary gave the House a version of events that differs not only from the truth but also from the version that the former attorney general gave the committee and the version the Prime Minister himself gave to the media on March 7. I also want to point out that on the following day, February 8, the parliamentary secretary answered a number of questions without ever using this pseudo-disclaimer.

It is quite clear to us that the minister and his parliamentary secretary breached the privilege of the House. In the parliamentary secretary's case, he cannot even claim to have quoted the Prime Minister as a defence. As for the Minister of Justice, he can try to defend himself by referring to the 11 times he quoted the Prime Minister, but I am sure members would agree that the Prime Minister totally contradicted that version of events during his press conference on March 7.

Accordingly, whether they were quoting the Prime Minister or not, the Minister of Justice and his parliamentary secretary misled the House during question period on March 7 and 8. My colleague also reminded us of an example from 2002 involving former defence minister Art Eggleton. Speaker Milliken ruled that Mr. Eggleton had breached the privilege of the House, even though the minister believed he was telling the truth and therefore had not intentionally misled the House.

The same principle applies here. Although the justice minister was quoting the Prime Minister, he said something that was not true, as demonstrated in the Prime Minister's remarks on March 7 and in the former attorney general's testimony.

As for the parliamentary secretary, as I said, he cannot even use that defence because he never claimed to be quoting the Prime Minister. Let me add that it would be interesting to find out where the minister and the parliamentary secretary got the information that they used in responding to the questions raised on February 7 and 8. If we knew that, we would know whether they were acting of their own accord or in accordance with a PMO briefing.

In light of all this, Mr. Speaker, it is clear to us that the privilege of the House was breached and that you must refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Justice, March 1st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, they are not the ones who asked the question.

The former attorney general was clear. The Prime Minister wanted to help the executives who support his party. We in the NDP stand up for workers.

The workers affected by the Phoenix fiasco are another example. It has been three years, as of this week, and they still are not being paid correctly. People across the country have been shocked by the former attorney general's testimony regarding repeated and inappropriate pressure from the Prime Minister and his office. People want the truth.

Will the Liberal government do the right thing and agree to an independent inquiry so we can finally get to the truth?

[Employment, March 1st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, give me a break. The Prime Minister and his office did not pressure the former attorney general in order to protect jobs. She was very clear in her testimony that they pressured her for their re-election.

If they wanted to protect jobs, they would have done the same for workers at Sears, Aveos, Rona and the Davie shipyard. In the meantime, steel and aluminum workers in Jonquière might lose their jobs because the government failed to do the work required to eliminate the unfair tariffs.

When will the government admit that it is not working for workers but rather for those who fill its coffers?

[La Rubrique Theatre, March 1st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, this year, we are celebrating the 40th anniversary of a well-known cultural organization in my riding, Théâtre La Rubrique.

This theatre, which was founded in Jonquière in 1979, has an impressive history: it has put on 1,360 shows for the public involving 450 artists. By showcasing many actors from the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area, La Rubrique has contributed to the region's artistic development over the past few decades. What is more, its mission to promote and present local productions has helped introduce thousands of young people and adults to the theatre.

Because of its expertise, which has been long recognized by the cultural community, La Rubrique has even been able to take on Saguenay's internationally acclaimed Festival international des arts de la marionnette.

I would like to close by recognizing the dedication of the members of the board of directors and employees who are working hard to ensure that La Rubrique is able to continue its activities for at least another 40 wonderful years.

[National Defence Act, February 28th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to know what he thinks about the fact that the Liberals rejected the NDP's amendment to strike paragraph 98(c). Under this paragraph, a service member could face life imprisonment for attempting suicide.

We know that mental health problems also exist in the Canadian Armed Forces. Would the member agree that it is important to acknowledge that fact? Why did the Liberals reject our amendment? We in the NDP believe that this section should have been eliminated. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts.

[National Defence Act, February 28th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, the NDP supports Bill C-77 at third reading. However, even with the proposed changes in the bill, acts of self-harm continue to be considered an offence in the military justice system. Asking for help in the military comes with a risk of disciplinary action.

What protections will the Liberals propose to ensure that military personnel have access to mental health services without fear of reprisals or risk of disciplinary action?

[International Trade, February 28th, 2019]

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?

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, February 26th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague's opinion on the follow remarks by Senator Pate.

I will read a few excerpts.

Bill C-83 also maintains the status quo regarding a lack of effective external oversight of correctional decision making. Under the new legislation, all decision making regarding when and how long prisoners are to be segregated will be made by a CSC administrator without the review of any third party.

She adds:

This change represents another step away from Justice Louise Arbour's recommendation for judicial oversight of corrections following the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of that.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, February 26th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, amendments were made to the bill at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Out of the 22 amendments proposed by the NDP, only two were adopted. It was the same thing for the Conservatives. Out of the 16 amendments they proposed, only one was adopted. However, all 21 Liberal amendments were adopted.

I want to know if my colleague thinks that the Liberals were reasonable in their review of the Conservative and NDP amendments.

[Business of Supply, February 19th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, we know SNC-Lavalin made donations to MPs and the Liberal government between 2004 and 2011. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the sunny ways and transparency the government promised in 2015 and for many months here in the House of Commons.

Today, we are debating a motion by my colleague from Victoria calling for a public inquiry to shed light on this matter. If a government claims to be transparent and honest with Canadians, is that not what it should do?