SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

May/23/24 3:09:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, after the Prime Minister got caught turning a blind eye to Beijing's interference in our elections, his government was dragged kicking and screaming into calling a public inquiry. It has now been revealed that the Prime Minister and the cabinet are obstructing the work of the inquiry by refusing to turn over documents to the commissioner. I have a simple question. Will the Prime Minister end the obstruction and turn over all documents requested by Madam Justice Hogue, unredacted, yes or no?

85 words

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

May/23/24 6:46:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up on a straightforward question that the Minister of Employment refuses to answer. How much has the minister been paid by Navis Group since the minister was appointed to cabinet? The minister's dealings with Navis Group raise serious ethical questions, including whether the minister broke the law by contravening the Conflict of Interest Act. Navis Group is owned by the minister's business partner. The minister was receiving, and continues to receive, payments from Navis Group. As the minister was receiving these payments, Navis Group was lobbying the minister's own department and managed to secure $110 million in federal contracts for its client. This has all the markings of self-dealing, conflict of interest and corruption. When the Minister of Employment appeared at committee on the estimates, I asked him about his shady arrangement with Navis Group. The minister effectively said that there was nothing to see here, and that it was all above board. The minister claimed it had been approved by the Ethics Commissioner. However, the minister's statement at committee was patently false. It was patently false because, in fact, the minister actively concealed from the Ethics Commissioner his connection to Navis Group. More specifically, the minister's disclosure to the Ethics Commissioner conveniently hid behind a numbered company without disclosing that the numbered company was Navis Group. A statement from the Office of the Ethics Commissioner confirms that the Ethics Commissioner was unaware of the minister's connection with Navis Group. Therefore, the Ethics Commissioner was unaware that the company that was paying the minister was simultaneously lobbying the minister's department and successfully securing $110 million in grants for its client. What we have is a shady deal, a shady arrangement, that the minister actively concealed from the Ethics Commissioner. When the minister got caught, he attempted to misdirect by peddling the falsehood that it had been approved by the Ethics Commissioner, raising additional questions about the minister's fitness for office. Since this scandal broke, the minister has not had the guts to stand in the House once and answer questions. Instead, the minister has been shielded by other ministers in the government who have dodged and deflected on the minister's behalf. On behalf of Canadian taxpayers, who have footed the $110 million bill to Navis Group, how much did the minister pocket from Navis Group? I just need a number.

406 words

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

Mr. Michael Cooper

May/23/24 6:54:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary claimed that the minister addressed the matter. The minister has done no such thing. Indeed, the minister has refused to stand in the House to answer a single question, and when I asked him a question at committee, he misdirected by falsely claiming that it had been cleared by the Ethics Commissioner when the arrangement clearly had not been. Here are the facts: The minister was being paid by a firm owned by his business partner that was lobbying his own department, and it secured $110 million in federal grants for its client. That smacks of a conflict of interest. Is the parliamentary secretary comfortable to stand in the House to tell Canadians that this is the low ethical bar set by the government?

129 words

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

May/23/24 9:22:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time three ways, with the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, followed by the member for Langley—Aldergrove. The RCMP carried out a criminal investigation into whether the Prime Minister obstructed justice when he fired Jody Wilson-Raybould as his attorney general during the SNC-Lavalin scandal. At committee, the RCMP confirmed that this investigation was thwarted after the Prime Minister hid behind cabinet confidence, refusing to turn over documents that were requested by the RCMP. Can the minister confirm whether the Prime Minister will finally end the obstruction and turn over the documents so that the RCMP can complete its investigation?

110 words

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

Mr. Michael Cooper

May/23/24 9:23:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP investigation report states that the strongest theory toward obstruction of justice rests on whether the Prime Minister fired Jody Wilson-Raybould so that a new attorney general would make a different decision with respect to the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. Again, if the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, if he is in fact not guilty of obstructing justice, then why will he not waive cabinet confidence and turn over the documents to the RCMP?

79 words

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

Mr. Michael Cooper

May/23/24 9:25:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have three observations. First, members have wide ambit during estimates in the questions posed to the minister. That has been respected this evening until I posed a question relating to the Prime Minister's potential criminality that irked the member for Kingston and the Islands. Second, the order in council with respect to cabinet confidence indicated that the RCMP went to the Department of Justice first to ask that the order in council and its scope be extended. Third, the matter of the SNC-Lavalin scandal, and what followed, arises from a decision of the director of public prosecutions that is housed within the minister's department.

110 words

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

Mr. Michael Cooper

May/23/24 9:27:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the very evidence that the Prime Minister has withheld from the RCMP goes to the heart of whether the Prime Minister committed a crime, whether he obstructed justice and whether he fired Jody Wilson-Raybould so that a new attorney general would make a different decision with respect to the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. The Prime Minister can waive cabinet confidence tonight. Again, if the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, then why has the cover-up continued?

80 words

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

Mr. Michael Cooper

May/23/24 9:28:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first, paragraph 23 of the RCMP investigation report states that it should be emphasized that the conclusions reached in the report do not translate to the absence of a criminal offence. In other words, the Prime Minister has not been cleared by the RCMP. Second, paragraph 24 of the report says that if there is additional evidence, the RCMP will reopen the investigation. The reason the RCMP had to close the investigation is that the Prime Minister is hiding behind cabinet documents that go to the heart of whether he obstructed justice. Is not the real reason the Prime Minister continues to hide behind cabinet confidence that he obstructed justice? He fired Jody Wilson-Raybould because she stood up to his corrupt demands that she interfere in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. Is that not what happened?

139 words