Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The members across the way keep talking about innuendo, so let's go back to the agreed-upon facts and list them in chronological order.
Fact: The Prime Minister slipped into an omnibus budget an amendment to the Criminal Code, allowing large-scale corporate criminals to escape conviction and trial by signing a deal.
Fact: That legislation was not introduced by the justice minister even though it amended the Criminal Code, which is the purview of that minister.
Fact: This committee had no role in studying that legislation. It went to the finance committee, something that should concern you, Mr. Chair, and all members of this committee.
Fact: After that legislation became law, the director of public prosecutions decided not to offer a deal to SNC-Lavalin, which is charged with over $100 million for bribery and fraud.
Fact: According to the lobbyists registry, the company changed its tune away from a legal approach to a political one, going to the PMO to seek political support to allow for a special side deal that would remove the possibility of conviction or trial for this 100 million dollars' worth of corruption.
Fact: Fourteen meetings happened in the Prime Minister's Office, including with PMO boss Gerald Butts.
Fact: Mr. Butts in December and the Prime Minister on another occasion spoke about such a special deal with the minister of justice and attorney general.
Fact: Not so long after that, the Prime Minister fired the attorney general and moved her to another portfolio. Apparently, the conversations with her didn't go so well.
Now, they say there's no political pressure: “Do something or you might lose your job, but, hey, no pressure. Please make your own decision.”
Since that time, the Prime Minister has gone out publicly and claimed that he had assurances from his former attorney general that he had told her the decision was entirely hers. After he made that public declaration, something caused her to resign—apparently no longer able to remain part of the Trudeau cabinet—so he attacked her. He directly attacked her by saying it was her job to stop wrongdoing from happening in his office. What is most despicable and cowardly about this attack is that he was attacking someone who is legally incapable of defending herself. She believes she is subject to solicitor-client privilege. In other words, she can't fight back. She can't speak.
There's one person who could allow her to speak, of course. That is the Prime Minister. You would think that a man who attacks someone in public would want to allow that person to respond, but so far, he has used his power of privilege to silence her. And the members across the way talk about bullying.
It's time that we let her speak. Isn't it interesting that this motion the government has put forward does not include her name? It does not—