Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to discuss an extremely important issue about the independence of our judicial system, about whether or not we have one system of justice for the people and another for the powerful, about whether or not we have in this country a new golden rule where those with the gold make the rules. To ascertain whether we have devolved to that level, we need answers to serious questions.
Let me begin by laying out the timeline of events that led us to this debate today.
On September 4, 2018, SNC-Lavalin learned that the director of public prosecutions would not offer that company a so-called deferred prosecution agreement to avoid trial and prosecution for allegations of over $100 million of bribery and fraud. At that moment, the decision was made. Almost two weeks later, on September 17, 2018, the former attorney general was called to a meeting with the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council.
At that meeting, the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council indicated their desire that such an agreement be offered to the company, in other words, that there be a deal allowing SNC-Lavalin to avoid trial and prosecution for these alleged crimes. On that day, the clerk and the Prime Minister learned that the former attorney general had decided not to offer such a deal to that company. The course of justice was set in place and that is important because subsection 139(2) of the Criminal Code makes it a criminal act to obstruct or defeat the course of justice.
We have significant evidence that members of the government attempted to do just that. For one, after the Prime Minister learned that his former attorney general would not offer such a deal and with full knowledge that the director of public prosecutions was not willing to offer such a deal either, he sent the Clerk of Privy Council, the Prime Minister's deputy minister, the most senior member of Canada's public service, to call the former attorney general and express his desire to see such an agreement occur.
Then on December 5, the most senior staffer in the government reached out over a time period at a bar in downtown Ottawa in direct discussions with the former attorney general and indicated his desire for there to be a deal. Gerald Butts is not just any political staffer. According to the Prime Minister, he and his words are the Prime Minister's own words. The Prime Minister told the entire Liberal caucus that anything that comes from Gerald Butts comes from him. In other words, the former attorney general would have known, sitting in that bar at a famous Ottawa hotel, that whatever Gerald Butts said, the Prime Minister was saying.
Of course, the Prime Minister is called “prime” for a reason. He is the top minister. He chooses the entire cabinet. In other words, the reporting relationship is from the Attorney General up to the Prime Minister. In other words, when he repeatedly, in person, through his top public servant and later his top political staffer, indicates his will on a matter, then, by definition, the person receiving that information is under pressure to do it.
That term “pressure” is very clear, because the Attorney General is to operate as the top Canadian law officer for the Crown. While she or he is allowed to consult with members of cabinet, those members are not allowed to impose pressure under doctrines of law that are established over many decades and have been inculcated into jurisprudence. I speak of course of the Shawcross doctrine. Simply put, any Attorney General that is pressured into an action on a judicial matter, particularly a prosecution, will have experienced inappropriate interference by the government.
If a boss says to an employee he wants something done and the employee says no, and then the boss sends his top assistant and the employee says no again, and then he sends his top official and the employee says no a third time, and a month later he punts the employee from his job, would that employee really believe he has not experienced any pressure? Just think about it. The boss says an employee's job depends on doing this but there is no pressure and that the employee can make up his own mind.
The Clerk of the Privy Council had some interesting language about the term “pressure” when he testified. He admitted that the former attorney general “felt pressure”. Those were his words. She felt "pressure to get it right”. Those were also his words. What did “get it right” mean?
According to the Prime Minister, in a meeting with the former attorney general in September, and according to a phone call from the Clerk of the Privy Council not long after, and according to Gerald Butts on December 5, getting it right meant signing a deal. In other words, she was pressured to sign a deal. That pressure had the effect of attempting to defeat, pervert or obstruct the course of justice that had already been established on September 4, when the top prosecutor refused a deal, and September 17, when the former attorney general confirmed to the Prime Minister that she was not going to provide a deal either.
Here we are. Subsection 139(2) of the Criminal Code is very clear that it is an offence to alter the course of justice.
We have significant evidence that the Prime Minister's Office under his personal direction attempted to do just that. If not, then the Prime Minister would have no compunction whatsoever about personally appearing under oath before the justice committee. When he was the leader of the third party in opposition, he specifically called on then prime minister Stephen Harper to testify under oath in another matter. The principle that prime ministers can never be asked to testify was apparently not known to the present Prime Minister, at least until now.
If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, then he will come forward and answer questions under oath so that everyday Canadians can find out precisely what went on here and so that we can restore a sense of confidence that everyone follows the same rules. No matter how rich one is, no matter how much money or how many lobbyists one can summon for political assistance, no one is above the law.