Madam Speaker, it really is no pleasure to rise this evening in this emergency debate. I never would have thought to have heard the very disturbing testimony of our former attorney general.
I was there observing her in person as she came before the justice committee. Her testimony was disturbing and, frankly, explosive. It was compelling, and I have no doubt that she was telling the truth throughout. She was clear and unambiguous. She was methodical. She never wavered.
She painted a picture about the Prime Minister and his PMO. It is a pretty ugly one, a pretty sad one. We have a Prime Minister and his top officials who, at his direction, repeatedly put political considerations ahead of the rule of law. We have a Prime Minister who repeatedly attempted to obstruct justice through his top officials. We have a Prime Minister who has lost the moral authority to govern. If the Prime Minister had any honour—and I am not sure he does have any honour—he would do the right thing and resign.
It was truly astounding to learn of the concerted, coordinated campaign directed by the Prime Minister to obstruct justice. That is what happened. Let us not kid ourselves. Let us not dismiss the gravity of what has happened here.
When our former attorney general met with the Prime Minister on September 17, he raised the SNC-Lavalin issue immediately. Fair enough. She, as Canada's Attorney General, explained to him that she had made a decision and that she would not be overturning the decision of the director of public prosecutions. She also advised the Prime Minister of her role as Attorney General and the independence of the office of the Attorney General and the independence of that office in terms of her prosecutorial discretion.
However, instead of respecting his Attorney General, instead of respecting the independence of her office, the Prime Minister could not accept the answer “no”.
I will just say now that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.
The Prime Minister instead said that we need to find a solution for SNC-Lavalin—in other words, politically interfere—for certain friends who are connected in high places in the Liberal Party.
Then what happened was a coordinated campaign, with 10 meetings and 10 phone calls, involving the highest officials in this government: the Prime Minister himself, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, the Prime Minister's principal secretary, the Prime Minister's chief Quebec adviser and the Clerk of the Privy Council, among others. What took place over a four-month period was a concerted effort to try to change the former attorney general's mind, a concerted effort to alter the course of justice.
Not only is that highly inappropriate, it may very well be a criminal offence, because it smells of obstruction of justice, which is to, in any way, alter the course of justice, pursuant to section 139 of the Criminal Code.
I have been astounded that Liberal members opposite have had the audacity, and have been so shameless, to stand in their places and claim, with straight faces, that these discussions were all about doing what was in the public interest. Based on the evidence of the former attorney general, among the things that were discussed in an effort to pressure or coerce her to obstruct justice were included the Quebec election, which I am sure is in the public interest; the fact that the Prime Minister is from Montreal, which is really consistent with the public interest; the value of SNC-Lavalin shares; and that SNC-Lavalin's counsel is not a shrinking violet, as the Clerk of the Privy Council told her. Is that in the public interest?
Gerald Butts told the former attorney general that “there is no solution here that does not involve some interference.” Does that sound like the public interest? How about Katie Telford? She said, “We don't want to debate legalities anymore.”
None of those matters in any way have anything to do with the public interest. They are not factors that legitimately could be considered by the former attorney general in the exercise of her prosecutorial discretion when taking into account the public interest.
What those statements also demonstrate is the total lack of respect for the rule of law by this Prime Minister, by his chief of staff, by his principal secretary, by the Clerk of the Privy Council and others. They knew that what they were doing was wrong. They knew that what they were doing crossed the line. However, they did not care, because they thought they could get away with it. They thought they were too powerful to obey the law. They thought they would never be caught. They thought that the former attorney general would succumb to the pressure, because in addition to all these totally inappropriate considerations, she was repeatedly threatened that she would be fired. Boy, did they ever underestimate the former attorney general.
The Clerk of the Privy Council called her immediately after speaking with the Prime Minister, what a coincidence, and threatened her not once, not twice, but three times and told her that the Prime Minister was going to get his way and that there were problems with the Prime Minister not being on the same page as the attorney general. When she did not cave, the Prime Minister, at the very first opportunity, fired her as the Attorney General, all because she would not succumb to the pressure, all because she had too much integrity to break the law.
We have a Prime Minister who has a lot, therefore, to answer. It is very clear that all along, he was up to his eyeballs in this sordid affair. This Prime Minister has repeatedly been untruthful. He has repeatedly failed to come clean with the facts. He has repeatedly tried to cover this up. Therefore, he needs to come before the justice committee, under oath, and answer the questions Canadians so desperately deserve to have answered. Before he does it, he should resign.