Mr. Speaker, I respect the argument that the member opposite is presenting but I disagree with two parts of it.
The first is the characterization of the conversations and the exchanges between members of this government and the former attorney general. Those characterizations, not necessarily in his speech but across the night tonight, have been exaggerated to extraordinary lengths. They are not the way she described them. They are the way the member's party has described them and they are different. Because they are different, I do not share them.
The second one is that the member opposite has offered an opinion and it is an important subject that he is offering an opinion on, but it is his opinion of the legal circumstances in this situation.
A member was speaking to me once about our caucus and the fact that we have 45 lawyers in our caucus who suddenly upon getting elected as MPs all became constitutional lawyers and experts in the Constitution. I appreciate that most lawyers are given that course in law school but the reality is that a legal opinion is a legal opinion. It is not a finding of fact. You may have come to a conclusion but that does not mean it is the right conclusion.