Debates of Feb. 28th, 2019

Alleged Interference in Justice System

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the perfect segue for not putting words in someone's mouth. I know the hon. member was probably trying to paraphrase the question I asked yesterday at the justice committee, but the way I put it was very clear. I asked if there was a violation of the Criminal Code. I did not ask, as was reported here, if anything illegal had transpired. I agree with the interpretation of the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. However, I want what I asked the former attorney general and how she answered to be clear on the record.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the member felt that the Criminal Code had been violated or that any law had been breached, then the former attorney general had a duty to go before the RCMP and make that complaint herself. That was her duty. She was morally obligated to do so, and she has never done so. Even when she was asked, she said that none of that had been crossed. That was her job. If the former justice minister and attorney general thought that a law had been breached, then it was her job, her prerogative, to make sure that was enforced.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this very important emergency debate. This is an issue that is very important to the residents of my riding of Davenport, and indeed to all Canadians. I am glad we are here this evening. It is important for every member, for every party and for anyone who wants the chance to speak to be able to do so, because we are faced with a serious situation that concerns many Canadians.

I am going to start by agreeing with something that the Minister of Foreign Affairs said so eloquently this morning on the radio. I agree with it completely. I believe that the member of Parliament for Vancouver Granville spoke her truth as she had wanted to at the justice committee yesterday. As an aside, I also want to personally very much say that I value the member of Parliament for Vancouver Granville. I value her as part of our caucus. I value her leadership on so many issues of importance to this government and I hold her in absolutely high regard.

Having said that, I am also in strong agreement that the Prime Minister would never have applied improper pressure, that the Prime Minister has always been very aware of and very clear on the unique role of the Attorney General and would never have exerted inappropriate pressure on the former attorney general. I also very much believe our Prime Minister when he says he completely disagrees with the characterization of events as stated by the member of Parliament for Vancouver Granville. I wanted to state this up front so it is very clear where I stand.

The rest of my time will be spent speaking to our government's efforts to focus on creating well-paying jobs for our families of today and tomorrow and also on how, even through the course of all of this going on over the last few weeks, we continue to remain focused on 37 million Canadians and making their lives better and making this country better. We will never lose sight of why we are here in this venerable chamber.

As our Prime Minister has said, our government will always stand up for Canadian workers and the importance of the rule of law. We will focus on jobs and growing the middle class and strengthening our economy.

In fact, our platform in 2015 set out our plan to create jobs and to help Canadians get the training they need to find and keep good jobs. Since November 2015, Canada has gained over 800,000 jobs, nearly three-quarters of which are full time. We know that job numbers fluctuate in the short term, and that is why we are focused on our long-term plan for economic growth and a stronger middle class, giving Canadians the support they need to find and keep good, well-paying jobs.

We are also proud that we have created over 70,000 Canada summer jobs. This is an enormous accomplishment that will give our youth the best start in their careers and their work life. This has amounted to a tripling of the amount of money we have spent on Canada summer jobs in my working-class riding of Davenport since we have come into office. It means a lot to the youth, and I know it will have a big impact on their lives.

Getting back to overall jobs, provincially the largest gains within Canada have been in Ontario, in British Columbia and also in Quebec over the last year. The three industries that saw the most growth in employment over the last year were utilities, with an 8.3% increase; transportation and warehousing, with almost 8%; and business, building and other support, with an almost 6% increase. The gains in employment were concentrated not only among youth aged 15 to 24 but also among men aged 55 and over.

Moreover, between January 2018 and January 2019, the average hourly wage among all workers increased by 2%. This is super-important in ridings like Davenport in cities like Toronto, where the cost of living continues to increase. It is really great to see that we have success in terms of increasing wages.

There were of course discussions about the potential loss of 9,000 jobs in communities across the country, including the possible impact on pensions, in the SNC-Lavalin affair that has been dominating the news. It is the job of any prime minister to stand up for Canadian workers, and I would say it is the job of all parliamentarians to stand up for Canadian workers, for Canadian jobs and for our economy.

In her appearance before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the former attorney general even confirmed that it is appropriate to discuss job impacts in this particular situation. There have been suggestions that this government only cares about jobs in Quebec, and this is absolutely not the case. We care about jobs right across the country, in every province and territory.

Indeed, it is important to note that SNC-Lavalin does not have offices only in Quebec. It has offices across Canada. In British Columbia, it has offices in Kelowna, Nanaimo, Nelson and Victoria. In Alberta, it has offices in Calgary, Fort McMurray, Edmonton and Grande Prairie. In Saskatchewan, it has offices in Regina and Saskatoon. In Ontario, it has offices in Sarnia, Toronto, London, Mississauga and Burlington. In Quebec, it has a number of locations: Gatineau, Laval, Longueuil, Montreal and Val-d'Or. In Newfoundland and Labrador, it has offices in Corner Brook and Mount Pearl. Finally, in Nova Scotia, it has offices in Antigonish and Halifax. The government rightly cares about any decision that impacts families, livelihoods, jobs and communities right across the country.

Let us not forget the impact of SNC-Lavalin on indirect jobs. We are not taking into consideration the many thousands of indirect jobs that are created by SNC-Lavalin in other industries that are at the heart of our economy.

Jobs matter not only as a way to ensure our livelihood but also as a way to contribute to our national tax base. This enables us to create programs like the highly successful Canada child benefit, which is the most significant public policy innovation since universal health care. It contributes to helping families with the high cost of raising their kids and to making a real difference in the lives of families in the middle class and those working hard to join it.

The new Canada child benefit, as we have said many times before, is simpler and tax-free, and it is targeted to income. It provides support to those who need it most. Nine in 10 Canadian families are better off under the new system, and receiving the single targeted benefit is helping to lift 300,000 children out of poverty. In addition, it helps middle-class parents buy their kids school supplies and sign them up for activities. We continue to hear from Canadians about the positive impact the Canada child benefit is having on their lives.

Indeed, we have been hearing great news over the last few days from Stats Canada, which shows very clearly that in fact 800,000 Canadians have been lifted out of poverty since we came into government, with almost 300,000 fewer children living below the poverty line compared to—

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The hon. opposition House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully like to question the relevance to the debate of my hon. colleague's comments. At the very beginning of her speech, she very briefly mentioned what we are here to talk about, which is the interference at the highest levels of government by the Prime Minister to try to influence the former attorney general. Subsequent to that, she has not spoken about this important issue at all.

We are all here. It is late at night. This is an emergency. It is literally a crisis we are facing. I think she should be speaking to the topic at hand.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

As the hon. opposition House leader knows, rules of relevance are not strictly enforced. Of course, I encourage members to try to bring their comments into relevance.

The hon. member for Davenport.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the health of our economy and the importance of jobs to this country is absolutely relevant to the issue at hand with respect to SNC-Lavalin. It is extremely important to understand the importance of SNC-Lavalin, how many jobs there are and what we are trying to do on the economy, which absolutely preoccupies this member and this government every single day. It is therefore important for Canadians to hear this.

Shifting back to why this is important for 37 million Canadians, a healthy economy is critical. Under our plan and all the initiatives our federal government has introduced, Canada is one of the best places to invest. Our corporate tax rate remains competitive. We have the lowest small business tax rate in the G7, and we have one of the strongest records of growth in the G7.

In our fall economic statement, we took further action to support business investment in Canada, drive innovation and encourage businesses to create more good, well-paying jobs for the middle class.

In the face of U.S. tax reforms, our government is taking action to support Canada's competitiveness and encourage businesses to create more good, well-paying jobs for the middle class. Our targeted, measured and fiscally responsible approach will support business investment in Canada; help make Canada the most globally connected economy in the world; make it easier for Canadian businesses to grow; help Canadian innovators add value, succeed and grow; and remove barriers to trade within Canada.

It is also important to note that given our government's focus on jobs, we have also taken a clear stance that unethical business practices should have no place in the Government of Canada's business dealings. We do not and we will not stand for it.

The fact is that corporate wrongdoing imposes significant economic and social costs. It also places barriers on our economic growth and significantly increases the cost and risk of doing business. Additionally, it undermines public and investor confidence.

I want to assure Canadians that protecting the integrity of our public programs and services is one of our highest priorities. We have a robust and effective integrity regime that is run by Public Services and Procurement Canada. It helps foster ethical business practices, ensures due process for suppliers and upholds public trust in our dealings.

By ensuring that Canadian businesses continue to compete and succeed, we are building on our proven plan to grow the economy by investing in jobs for the middle class.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, am disappointed to have to rise this evening to speak to this issue. When I arrived here in 2015, I attended the session for new members of Parliament. There were 200 of us who were new, and I was so excited, because everyone I talked to from every party said the same thing, that we were all here to work together collaboratively to make a better Canada. A better Canada is things like affordable housing, public pharmacare, affordable daycare and helping students with tuition fees.

My question for the member for Davenport, who I have a great deal of respect for, is this: Why will the government not just agree to a full public inquiry so we can get on with doing the business I know the people of Kootenay—Columbia sent me here to do and that the rest of us were sent here to do? Let us agree to a full public inquiry and let us get on with doing the things that are important to make a better Canada.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure of serving with the member on the environment committee, and it is an honour to serve with him. He talks about transparency. I would say that we have done so in a number of ways. We have waived solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidence so that the member for Vancouver Granville could speak to this issue at the justice committee.

I believe there is a very clear route for information to get out. We also have the Ethics Commissioner investigating this. He has absolute authority to compel witnesses under oath to speak as well as to have documents brought forward for the investigation.

Over the course of the next few weeks, we will have a lot of information. I think the best way for us to have a public inquiry is to have the public make a decision about the information they hear and make their own conclusions.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite gave a very long speech. I actually thought it was a budget speech in some parts, because she kept talking more about what the government has done rather than about the government intervening in the course of justice.

It seems to me that the Liberal government has lost its moral compass, and it seems that many members are playing alongside. Men and women have fought and died for our Canadian way of life. They fought for democracy, and they fought for justice and the rule of law. They did not fight for jobs.

I would say to the government that if the thinking is that it is all about jobs, it is a moral hazard, because eventually, we are going to say which jobs. What signal is that sending to corporate Canada? It is saying that if they are big enough, they can do things that are wrong that contravene our international conventions, such as bribery of foreign officials and sex trafficking within this country. There is so much wrong with that.

The member has said in this place that it is okay, Canadians. We did it because we want to preserve those jobs. What is next? What signal does that send to Canadians? What signal does that send to our children? A government has to be grounded in values, and I am afraid that the government has lost all moral authority and that the member has lost her way. I hope she can find it again.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this government has very strong values that we continue to uphold every single day. We never forget why we are here. It is about 37 million Canadians. It is about making sure that we create a better life for them both today and tomorrow.

In terms of ethics and values in this case, our Prime Minister has steadfastly said that there has not been any inappropriate pressure ever applied. He has been very clear about the unique role of the Attorney General. The Prime Minister has disagreed with the characterization of the events as stated by the member of Parliament for Vancouver Granville.

In terms of jobs, I talked a lot about jobs, because it was important for me to state the importance of jobs in our economy in this debate. I do not think that is the only important element, but it is a key element that we need to keep in mind.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Lakeland.

We are sitting until midnight this evening for an emergency debate because Canada is caught in a very serious constitutional crisis. Never before in recent history has a barely three-week-old scandal caused such turmoil in federal politics.

It started with the resignation of a high-ranking government minister and of the Prime Minister's principal adviser, and it is becoming increasingly clear that what happened was completely disrespectful and inappropriate in an esteemed parliamentary democracy like Canada. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister of Canada, the Prime Minister of all Canadians, literally jumped with both hands and feet into partisan political interference in a legal proceeding on a criminal matter. We are here this evening to speak out against these actions that are sure to offend anyone who believes in Canadian democracy.

What Canadians heard yesterday was not just a powerful testimony but a real political and judicial atomic bomb. The former attorney general of Canada lost her job barely a month and a half ago after being subject to four months of relentless, sustained and inappropriate pressure from the highest officials in the Canadian government, namely, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, Canada's top civil servant and others. What happened is completely unacceptable. The former attorney general gave solid, straightforward, detailed and powerful testimony. I wish the best of luck to anyone who tries to contradict the specific details of her statements. Anyone who knows their history will remember John Dean. That is what this situation reminds me of. I will talk about him a little later.

Yesterday, the former attorney general, who lost her job for standing up for her principles, said that she was the target of consistent and sustained pressure. In her opinion, the government wanted to politically interfere with the office of the attorney general in the exercise of its power. She said that she was the victim of inappropriate attempts to obtain a remediation agreement and the victim of thinly veiled threats.

That was not some poor victim saying that; it was the former attorney general, the person responsible for this country's seals and the integrity of two legal systems. In a democracy like ours, words like those have serious consequences, all the more so because they were said by people who inappropriately and constantly pressured her for four months.

She said those people protested her decision not to proceed. She said no, her decision was made. Enough was enough and they had to stop.

Well, they did not stop.

She went on to say that various top-ranking individuals pressured her to take partisan political considerations into account.

The legal process must encompass everything but partisan politics. She began receiving thinly veiled threats relating to matters that had nothing at all to do with the public interest.

She was told that SNC-Lavalin would be moving six months before the election, that SNC-Lavalin was holding a board meeting, that a decision had to be made, that if the right decision was made, open letters would be released across Canada, that everything would be fine, that there could be informal contact if necessary.

To make things even more scandalous, Canada's highest-ranking public servant, the Clerk of the Privy Council, the country's top civil servant, spoke directly with the former attorney general, urging her to act and warning her that, one way or another, the Prime Minister of Canada would find a solution.

This is outrageous.

The most senior public servant made veiled threats against the former attorney general of Canada. That is indecent. I want to say this from my seat, right here in the House of Commons. Mr. Wernick has impugned the reputation of the senior public service. His part in this matter is appalling.

The Liberals claim to be looking out for the workers but the truth is that the only job they care about is the Prime Minister's. The truth was revealed in one of the heavy-handed interactions with the former attorney general. The Prime Minister's senior adviser, Mr. Bouchard, told the former attorney general that they had to get re-elected. That is the horrible Liberal ugliness in all its wretched glory. All those people want is to be re-elected. They should be ashamed.

There was not just one meeting. A few days ago, I proudly stated how outrageous it was that the former attorney general had been pressured on three occasions. Now we learn that it was 10 times and that there were dozens of emails. There were 10 meetings and 10 telephone conversations where she was pressured. She also received dozens of emails from some very competent people. She nevertheless continued to uphold the law.

What happened? She was pressured hundreds of times by 11 people including the Prime Minister of Canada, the Minister of Finance, the top public servant in Canada, the chiefs of staff of all these fine people and their political advisers. These are all pretty smart people. If getting pounced on by the Prime Minister of Canada, the country's top public servant and the finance minister does not amount to inappropriate pressure, I do not know what does.

What is outrageous is that this happened so often in the Prime Minister's Office. If we had a real head of state as prime minister, and not a partisan leader, he would have put an end to those conversations immediately, indicating that they were in the Prime Minister's Office and not in the office of the leader of the Liberal Party, and that everyone must act correctly. However, that is not what the Prime Minister said. On the contrary, he added a partisan layer. He went on to say that he is the member for Papineau and that a provincial election was coming up in Quebec. The Prime Minister interfered, in a partisan manner, directly in the judicial process and in a criminal case. That is why we are calling for him to resign. What he did was unacceptable. He has disgraced the highest public office in this country.

I hear the Liberals saying they want to protect jobs, but there is a procedure for doing so, and they did not follow it. There are steps to follow and consultations and conversations to be had at the right time. Once the decision is taken, it is too late. Still, they continued to apply political pressure after the decision was taken. That is even worse. The decision was taken on September 4, and that is when the pressure began and it lasted until December.

I often hear people say that we have to think about the jobs. No one here wants people to lose their job. However, neither does anyone, not in Quebec or Canada, want these jobs to be protected illegally. There is a way of doing things, but the Liberal Party did their own thing.

When we talk about jobs I, am reminded of my time at the National Assembly of Quebec nine years ago. I was leader of the Action démocratique at the time. Along with colleagues like the late Sylvie Roy, current Minister Bonnardel, current Minister Caire, Marc Picard, Janvier Grondin, and others, we were the first to call for an inquiry into the construction industry. Some very high-ranking people called me to tell me to be careful because there were jobs at play and companies could go bankrupt over what I was calling for. However, we stood our ground because it is more important to do the right thing than to engage in partisan politics. Sadly, this government chose the latter.

That is why this evening we are strongly condemning the Prime Minister's partisan actions as he interfered in the judicial process and in a criminal case just to get re-elected.

Shame on them.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's speech.

As a member of Parliament, I must say that I am surprised by what I heard today and what I have been hearing this evening. My hon. colleague says that he would not be prepared to fight tooth and nail if jobs were at stake in his riding. The Conservatives understand that, since they are not prepared to fight tooth and nail for jobs.

I must say that I am a little bit—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Order. I can stand here all night until you stay quiet, or we can continue. I will leave it up to all of you.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

My hon. colleague spoke about political interference, but yesterday his own party leader engaged in political interference when he asked the RCMP to intervene in a matter for which it should be completely independent.

My colleague was a journalist in Quebec, and I want to ask him whether we should wait for all of the testimony to be heard before making a decision. Does he truly believe that a politician should intervene and call on the police to investigate?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' hypocrisy has reared its ugly head.

First, I want to say that we are asking the RCMP to investigate so that we can get to the bottom of this matter. Then—

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Politicians do not run the police.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Running the police and asking a police officer to investigate is the Liberals' idea of this—

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The police in Canada are independent.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

That is a matter of debate.

I will let the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent continue. I am trying to listen to his answer.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I were a Liberal member and I only had the opportunity to rise once every three months, I would find that unfortunate too, and I would make the most of it when I did get a chance to speak.

For the past three weeks, the Conservatives and the NDP have been repeatedly asking for 10, 12 or 15 people to testify and give their side of the story. Every time, the Liberals, with their legendary hypocrisy, said that it was out of the question because it was a witch hunt. Now that they are in trouble, they are saying that it might not be a bad idea.

This morning, I heard the member for Shawinigan, an influential minister, say the most outrageous thing. He said that the last thing the government wanted was political interference. Unfortunately, there has been political interference for the past six months, political interference on the part of the Liberals.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue that we are talking about in the House this evening has to do with constitutional principles, which are more important than any company or individual. If we diminish any of the principles that are before us this evening, such as the rule of law in the Constitution, we risk diminishing the other rights and principles set out therein. We risk diminishing the rights and principles that protect minorities across Canada, that protect the French fact in Canada, that protect francophones across the country, particularly those outside Quebec. That is why the issue that is before us this evening is more important than a company or an individual. This is a constitutional crisis that has to be dealt with in the House and in committee.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the comment, the speech and the science referenced by my colleague, who has a lot of expertise in this area and is helping Canadians better understand the situation.

This is indeed a constitutional crisis. It is unbelievable and unprecedented that the Prime Minister became personally involved, using partisan politics in its purest form, in the judicial process of a criminal case. There is a way to resolve this under the law, and the Liberals did not do that. They dragged their feet.

At the end of the day, it is important to respect the choices of people who have access to all the evidence and who, in their heart of hearts, without any partisanship, in an objective and neutral manner, assess a situation that must be subsequently approved by the attorney general. That is what happened in this case, and once the decision was taken, Liberal partisanship reared its ugly head and made the situation even worse.

If by some misfortune people lose their jobs, they should talk to the people from the Liberal Party who dragged their feet and did this all wrong. The law must be obeyed and jobs must be protected, but without flouting the law.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on February 12, the Prime Minister said he was “surprised and disappointed” in the former attorney general for resigning from cabinet. He also said, “The government of Canada did its job and to the clear public standards expected of it. If anybody felt differently, they had an obligation to raise that with me. No one, including [the former attorney general, whom he called by her first name], did that.”

The Prime Minister also publicly said, “At no time did I or my office direct the current or previous attorney general to make any particular decision in this matter.”

However, that stands in stark contrast to the former attorney general's testimony at the justice committee yesterday. She said, “For a period of approximately four months, between September and December of 2018, I experienced a consistent and sustained effort by many people within the government to seek to politically interfere in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in my role as the Attorney General of Canada”. She said, “These events involved 11 people...from the Prime Minister's Office, the Privy Council Office and the office of the Minister of Finance.” She said there were “in-person conversations, telephone calls, emails and text messages”, and “approximately 10 phone calls and 10 meetings specifically about SNC” that she and her staff were a part of.

The timing is important. On September 4, the former attorney general was informed by the head of the arm's-length director of public prosecutions that the public prosecutor had decided to proceed with criminal charges against SNC-Lavalin.

On September 17, the Prime Minister brought up SNC Lavalin with the former attorney general. He admits this. She says she stated directly to him, “I had done my due diligence and had made up my mind on SNC and...I was not going to interfere with the decision of the director.”

She said that in response, the Prime Minister outlined concerns about the potential of SNC-Lavalin moving out of Canada if a prosecution proceeded, and that she was surprised when the Clerk of the Privy Council then started to make the case for a deferred prosecution agreement instead, which would require her to change her mind and interfere.

Here is where the former attorney general exposed the Prime Minister's real motivation. She said the clerk pointed out, “There is a board meeting on Thursday, September 20th, with stockholders,” and that “there is an election in Quebec soon”. She said, “At that point the Prime Minister jumped in, stressing that there is an election in Quebec and that 'I am an MP in Quebec, the member for Papineau.'”

The Liberals keep claiming that the Prime Minister's concerted pressure was a concern for jobs, but let us be real about what this is actually all about. It is that the Prime Minister will always put his political power and Liberal partisan interests ahead of principle, ahead of doing what is right and even, as we now all know, ahead of upholding the rule of law.

While hundreds of thousands of oil and gas workers across Canada, Albertans, auto workers in Oshawa and others, can be forgiven for asking why the heck he does not care about their jobs, his pressure on the former attorney general was not really about jobs in Quebec either. It was about his job.

Clearly, talking about the Quebec election and connecting his rationale to his riding, shows it is all about politics and power. I am pretty sure Quebeckers do not really want the Prime Minister to use them and their jobs and their livelihoods as an excuse for his inappropriate behaviour and his lack of a moral compass, or as a spin tool for the crisis he has created either.

However, his political considerations were repeatedly put to the former attorney general. The desk-book of the director of public prosecutions specifically excludes “possible political advantage or disadvantage to the government or any political group or party” as a deciding factor.

The former attorney general said that when she asked the Prime Minister directly whether he was politically interfering with her, he said, “No, no, no, we just need to find a solution.”

Two weeks after the decision was made by the arm's-length public prosecutor, the Prime Minister told the former attorney general that she needed to “find a solution”. What exactly is the Prime Minister's definition of direction if it is not telling his former attorney general, after she explicitly told him she was not going to interfere, that she still needed to “find a solution”?

The Prime Minister and all the Liberals acknowledge the pressure. They call it that themselves, and they do not dispute her accounts of these multiple meetings and calls and messages from multiple people. In fact, they all say it is normal, but the problem is that all those attempts are the violation. That is why all Canadians should be seized with the gravity of this unacceptable situation.

The Criminal Code says that everyone who wilfully attempts in any manner “to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty”. It goes on to say that it is a crime to engage in any conduct with the intent to provoke “a state of fear” in “a justice system participant in order to impede him or her in the performance of his or her duties”.

While the former attorney general is clearly made of extraordinary mettle, she referenced her understandably high level of anxiety in the escalating barrage and veiled threats from the Prime Minister and powerful staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council, who all refused to take her no for an answer and repeatedly pushed her to reverse her own decision and to interfere with the public prosecutor.

Tellingly, none of these Liberals contradict the former attorney general's evidence, details or specifics. Over weeks, they suggested there were multiple versions of the truth. They blamed her, saying it was her perception, and she should have acted or said something differently. I guess she was wearing too short of a skirt. They demeaned her, they questioned her competence and they claimed she is difficult.

Even today, a Liberal MP said the former attorney general's concerns were from “a lack of experience”. I am sorry, but she is a lawyer and a former Crown prosecutor, so that is baloney, and that she is not “a team player”, which of course is a pretty standard jab at any individual willing to go against a group covering each other's butts.

There's also this quote, “The way she's acting, I think she couldn't handle the stress”. Sorry, boys, but maybe he is going to accuse her of being on her period next. He said, “I think there’s somebody else behind—maybe her father—pulling the strings.” I think we can all agree that she has demonstrated one thing for sure, she is nobody's puppet.

That member dutifully read an apology after he was forced to today, just like the Prime Minister's empty words that she should have said something about these kinds of attacks earlier, but let us call a spade a spade.

It is clear to all, except blind Liberal apologists, that the Prime Minister, the leader of these fake feminists, ganged up with others and spent four months, despite clear and repeated noes from the former attorney general to get her to say yes, and when she did not, he fired her, and then all the Liberals blamed her for it.

This whole awful spectacle is a pattern of saying one thing and doing another, of putting rich powerful cronies ahead of everyone else, of refusing to take personal responsibility and blaming others, of patronizing and attacking anyone who dares to question or disagree with them, of one standard for them and their fellow elites, and another for everyone else.

It is a culture set by the Prime Minister and it is pervasive. The SNC-Lavalin investigation is now the fifth Ethics Commissioner investigation into this Prime Minister, who is the first Prime Minister in Canadian history convicted for breaking Canada's ethics laws.

There is political interference on the Davie shipyard contract for Scott Brison's friend, and withholding documents in an investigation to try to scapegoat a senior distinguished officer in an attempt to cover it up.

There were attacks on the track record of, and interference in Canada's previously independent regulator to kill pipelines based on votes and politics in certain parts of the country.

The Liberals keep saying there is nothing to see here because the public prosecution is going ahead, and Canada's institutions are intact. However, that is not because of the Prime Minister. That is only because of the moral fortitude and the resolve of the former attorney general to defend the independence of those institutions, to uphold the rule of law and to resist the repeated, consistent attempts by the highest levels of the Liberal government to bully and intimidate her into interfering.

The former attorney general says the Clerk of the Privy Council told her, “I think he [the Prime Minister] is going to find a way to get it done, one way or another. He is in that kind of mood, and I wanted you to be aware of it.” He said that the Prime Minister was dug in, in a firm frame of mind, and he was not sure what was going to happen.

She said the Friday before the Prime Minister removed her as Attorney General, the clerk told her former deputy minister about the shuffle and that, “one of the first conversations the new minister will be expected to have with the Prime Minister would be on SNC-Lavalin, in other words, that the new minister would be prepared to speak to the Prime Minister on this file.”

This raises a fair question. What about the current Attorney General? What is happening now behind closed doors? Why has the Prime Minister blocked the former attorney general from talking about anything else that happened between when she was appointed veterans affairs minister and when she resigned?

Today is February 28, and 35 years ago today, the Prime Minister's father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau took a long walk in the snow and made a decision.

The allegations against the current Prime Minister are very serious, shockingly so, and the entire senior leadership of the party is implicated in this culture of corruption: the Prime Minister; his closest two advisers, one who already resigned; the finance minister and his most senior advisers; even the Clerk of the Privy Council, the civil servant responsible for protecting and embodying the objective and non-partisan values and ethics for the entire civil service; and the current Attorney General.

The Prime Minister has lost the moral authority to govern. Canadians cannot have a Prime Minister who is willing to bend the law and bully others to bend the law for his own personal and political interest, and those of his rich, powerful buddies.

That is why Canadians need the police to investigate these serious allegations, and that is why the Prime Minister must resign.