Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member opposite, but I would like to point out one thing and ask him a question.
First of all, this is the second time in a row that it has been said that the course of justice had already been established on September 4. The member for Carleton also made that statement in his comments.
This is effectively stating that the course of justice had been set as of September 4.
Mr. Wernick was asked this very question about discussions that were appropriate, as he described them, with the former minister of justice after September 4. He said that they were indeed lawful and appropriate in the course of having discussions between the Prime Minister's Office and in and amongst cabinet members.
The illogic of the position that has been outlined by two Conservative members is really quite stark. There are things that are known as attorney general directives, and those attorney general directives sometimes apply to litigation that is already in the courts. One was put out with respect to indigenous litigation and one with respect to HIV litigation. I just put that out there to outline the illogic of the position being articulated on the opposition benches.
The question I have relates to where the member finished his speech with respect to the ethics investigator. We know that the ethics investigator has the power to summon witnesses and the power to require them to provide evidence under oath. The ethics investigator also has the power to require those witnesses to produce documents. For the purpose of enforcing those powers, the ethics investigator has the same power as a court of record.
Is it the position of the member opposite that the ethics investigator is not an independent forum that cannot find the answers that he seeks?