Debates of March 20th, 2019

Opposition Motion—Resignation from Cabinet of the Member for Vancouver Granville

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Timmins—James Bay. I would like to thank him for his very important work on this particular issue and for his ongoing effort to get to the truth for Canadians.

I would also like to give a nod to my colleague, the member for Victoria, for his excellent work on the justice file and the incredible level of competence, intelligence and compassion he has brought to this entire affair over the past six weeks. I am quite honoured to be following in his footsteps as the justice critic for the NDP, and as always, I am very proud to stand as the member for Essex.

I rise today to speak to the motion before us that would allow the member for Vancouver Granville to speak her whole truth. Liberals want Canadians to believe that she has already had her opportunity to do this. They keep repeating the line that she has had four hours to have her say and that is good enough for them.

That is not going to get us to the truth. The former attorney general and justice minister has said in this chamber and publicly to the media that she would like the opportunity to come back to committee and would in fact be available at invitation.

We now know that the committee made the unprecedented move yesterday to vote to end the study and to shut down the testimony about allegations into political interference with the former attorney general. That is really the heart of why we are here. I hear my Liberal colleagues making legal arguments about precedent setting and expanding what people can speak about under orders in council, but we are here to talk about political interference. We are not here to talk about the Shawcross doctrine. We are not here to talk about a lot of the things the Liberals are trying to change the channel with. Quite frankly, I think Canadians are getting dizzy from their changing the channel. They are running out of channels, unfortunately.

Once again today, there was a new development. The CEO of SNC-Lavalin blew apart the argument that has been put forward by the Liberals, and in fact by the Prime Minister, that this is all about jobs and the Prime Minister is just trying to protect Canadian jobs. Today, the CEO of SNC-Lavalin stated that he never told the Prime Minister that jobs in Canada were in danger. He never said that. The jobs argument is not based in fact and the Prime Minister is trying to turn that channel to protect the only job that matters to him, which is his own.

When the CEO was asked on BNN Bloomberg about whether he threatened to move SNC headquarters out of Montreal, he said no. A reporter asked where the notion that this was a possibility came from, and the CEO responded, “I don't know what people make up”.

Once again, we are finding bombshell after bombshell come out in this case, where the Liberals do not want to get to the truth. Now we know the jobs argument is completely false. This was not the argument made by SNC-Lavalin at all, and its CEO has been quite public about that.

The Prime Minister needs to answer to Canadians regarding why he has decided to bend the truth and create the false argument about jobs and trying to protect them. This argument is quite ironic given the fact that he turned his back on 12,000 Sears workers, GM Oshawa workers and postal workers. The list of jobs the Prime Minister will not protect or fight for goes on and on.

Let us get back to what happened at the justice committee. I cannot speak to this specifically, of course, because the meeting was in camera, behind closed doors. In an emergency meeting last week, we attempted to have the conversation about inviting the member for Vancouver Granville back to committee. Quite publicly, the Liberals used a crude tool to shut down debate under the guise that they needed time to think about things before coming back to committee. They said they had not had time to speak to each other and that they wanted to look at all of the possibilities.

On the eve of this week's justice committee meeting, which was to be in camera, behind closed doors, Liberals sent a letter, not to the committee members but to the media, saying there is nothing to see here and that they had already made up their minds. They said Canadians could make up their minds based on what they now know and that was enough. Canadians did not need to know any more.

It does not come as a surprise that New Democrats fundamentally disagree with the moves and behaviour of the Liberals on the justice committee.

It was very clear to me in my new role on the justice committee that the Liberal members are more interested in damage control and protecting the Prime Minister than they are in finding the truth. The truth is what Canadians deserve.

Liberal committee members flat out refused to hear from the former attorney general again, upon being given multiple chances to have her come before committee. They also refused to summon the majority of PMO staffers implicated by her testimony. Instead, they voted to move on, and sent a letter to the media saying that there was nothing to see here. Only three of the 11 people named by the former attorney general appeared before committee. We all know that Mr. Wernick came back again and had right of reply, something the Liberals are denying the former attorney general.

I cannot fathom what it is like to be a Liberal sitting over on the benches with those members, seeking to have one's truth be told and colleagues are saying that they cannot allow that. It really speaks to the character of members of that caucus.

Who have we not heard from? We have not heard from Katie Telford, the chief of staff to the PMO; Elder Marques; Mathieu Bouchard; Jessica Prince, the chief of staff to the former attorney general; and the Prime Minister himself. All of these people who were named by the former attorney general have not had an opportunity to come and clear their names, because certainly some egregious things were said about them. One would think the Prime Minister would want his staff to have the opportunity to clear their own names, to come and state what happened, in their opinion.

I, like the member who spoke earlier, have reserved my judgment because I do not know what has happened. Canadians do not know what has happened. The Liberals are gatekeeping on the truth and not allowing people who are involved in this scandal to come and speak. There could not be any stronger argument for a full independent public inquiry than this, following all of these revelations that keep tumbling out into the front pages of newspapers across our country.

The Liberals are trying to create this concept that there is nothing to see here, that they have done unprecedented things and everything that they can possibly do. That argument is not being accepted by opposition members. It is not being accepted by Canadians either. Everywhere I go in my riding, people are talking about what is happening. People want the former attorney general to have the other half of her story be told. It is being denied to her by her own colleagues, and Canadians see that clearly. They want the truth to come out and they deserve that truth to come out. I have never been more assured that a public inquiry is necessary.

I want to talk about fairness. The former attorney general has publicly requested the opportunity to return to the committee, which we now know will not happen. The Liberals keep saying she has already testified for four hours. However, Canadians know there were strict limits on the period of time she could discuss. She stated that over and over during her original testimony. She stated:

My narrative stops here. I must reiterate to the committee my concern, outlined in the letter to the chair yesterday. That is that Order in Council 2019-0105 addresses only my time as the Attorney General of Canada and therefore does nothing to release me from restrictions that apply to my communications while I proudly served as the Minister of Veterans Affairs...

She herself has expressed to her own colleagues that she would like to come back. Despite the Liberals' feminist rhetoric, the Prime Minister continues to actively silence her. This is especially unfair given the Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, was allowed to testify twice.

Why is there one set of rules for powerful men in our country and another for women? The government claimed it would be different, but the proof is in the behaviour of the Liberal government, and women across Canada are not fooled. There is a reason only 26% of us are sitting in the House, and it is not because it has created the climate in the ultimate halls of power here for women to be able to speak their truth. What has happened in this very horrible display for Canadians is that Canadians now know corporations can get into the office of the PMO, can influence legislation and that the PMO is willing to allegedly pressure the former attorney general to bend the rules for Liberals.

Canadians deserve the truth and it is time for the Liberals to stop hiding it from them.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, when I hear the arguments advanced by the other side and disagree with some of them, I do not attack the character of the individuals. I appreciate the principles and points of law they raise, but I do not feel that same generosity of spirit coming back. It is important to try to rebuild the trust, because that is clearly what is at stake here.

When I also hear them quote articles selectively, it makes me understand why people might be reluctant to go in front of a committee, because their testimony is not being fairly reflected in the debate in the House.

For example, the SNC-Lavalin executive was quoted today. He who said very clearly he never spoke to the Prime Minister. Just as clearly said in the very same article was that “some of the 9,000 Canadian jobs at his company are in jeopardy without a resolution to the company’s ongoing scandal in Ottawa”, that “we're in a place here where it is not just about 9,000 jobs” at SNC-Lavalin, that there is a ricochet effect.

We do not not require a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing sometimes. Sometimes those analyses do not have to come through the CEO. They can come through caucus members and they can come through the popular understanding of what this means.

Why does the NDP not quote the full article when it quotes the record? If New Democrats do not intend to quote the full record of these sorts of articles, why would we trust them to quote the full testimony at the hearings?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

I find it rich that the Liberals are heckling for us to tell the truth, Madam Speaker. Canadians will appreciate irony in that, given the current situation.

That was a quote from the BNN Bloomberg interview. Those were direct quotes. I appreciate that the member opposite needs to be an apologist for his government, but I will not do that. That is not why I was sent here by Canadians. We need to get to the truth. When women who stand up to their bosses are fired and silenced, Canadians will be outraged, and that is what has allegedly happened here, which is the reason we need to the truth.

I understand why the Liberals want to change the channel. The Liberals want some place to hide. The jobs argument has been blown apart today, and I am sure there will be other articles tomorrow on the front page of the paper about the CEO of SNC-Lavalin, who has now revealed that he did not tell the Prime Minister that jobs were at risk. He did not say that and we heard the Prime Minister repeatedly tell the House that was the case.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, in response to the question that was just asked, I want to quote a top anti-bribery official at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, of which, by the way, Canada is one of the founding members. It says, “the Canadian government should not use the potential loss of jobs as a reason to shelve the criminal prosecution of Montreal engineering giant SNC-Lavalin Group Inc.” The anti-bribery working group has voiced very significant concern about the way this has been handled and about the fact that it should be an open and transparent investigation.

Does the member feel the investigation has been open and transparent, and we could actually say that to the OECD? How she feels about Canada's reputation now coming into question by the OECD?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, this scandal is jeopardizing Canada's international reputation. The OECD's working group on bribery is investigating this affair and it was prompted by the former attorney general's testimony. We heard that it was ringing alarm bells based on what was happening, but it was reassured because it was being studied at the justice committee, which now has been completely shut down. Therefore, any reassurance that the OECD and the global community had that Canada was taking this seriously has been completely removed.

This is why a public independent inquiry is completely necessary now. How else do we prove to the globe that we are serious about addressing these allegations, that we are not just sweeping this under the rug? It is so serious. Canadians certainly know that and the OECD knows that. The question is why the Liberals do not seem to know this.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Windsor West, Employment; the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Physician-Assisted Dying.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise and represent the people of Timmins—James Bay.

What we are talking about today very much needs to be put in perspective. The Liberals will present this as a kind of he said, she said. We had Gerry Butts try to present it like it was one of those episodes on Friends, that maybe if he had been a bit more sensitive at the time, if he had allowed her to just speak more, she would not have slammed the door on the way out. The Prime Minister did this ridiculous statement about being more compassionate in his cabinet. We are talking about the corrosive power of the 1%.

The Prime Minister has been willing to burn through his credibility. In 2015, people believed him for openness, reconciliation, feminism, doing politics differently and for showing that it would not be the backroom politics of Stephen Harper and the cronyism of Jean Chrétien. However, he has shown a willingness to give us the worst of both worlds. It was about helping his friends at SNC-Lavalin.

He stood in the House day after day and told us it was about 9,000 jobs, but we now know that was false. We never saw the Prime Minister stand up for any jobs when they were Stelco workers, or Sears workers or oil sands workers. Why not Stelco or Sears? Because their pensions were being given over to the family of Morneau Shepell. This is about the power of the 1%.

Now we have the OECD stating internationally that all the alarm bells are ringing over the interference by the Prime Minister in the international bribery case against SNC-Lavalin. The Prime Minister's Office just a few days ago responded to the OECD and promised it a robust, independent set of hearings. That, too, was also a falsehood. The Liberals shut down the justice committee hearings. Why? Because they are doing everything they can to protect the key people around the Prime Minister's Office who interfered with and attempted to obstruct justice. This is the fundamental issue that we have to talk about.

Ben Chin, a public office holder, still has his job. He has not been brought forward to committee. Ben Chin went to the former attorney general and told her that she had to change direction and bring in this deferred public prosecution, otherwise, he said, SNC “will leave Montreal, and it's the Quebec election right now”. Well, we know now from SNC executives that they never said they would leave Montreal.

Therefore, when a public office holder presents a lie in order to interfere with the public prosecution, that could be seen as obstruction, and that certainly would be something we would expect the justice committee to care about, but the Liberals shut that down.

The former clerk of the Privy Council had to give up his position because of his role as a political actor. He went to the former attorney general and said that there would be all these jobs lost, which we now know is false. To imagine the Clerk of the Privy Council making this up in order to interfere with an independent prosecution is shocking. Then he also told her on September 17 that SNC was about to move out of Montreal, which we again now know SNC never said.

Therefore, this was cooked up in the Prime Minister's Office, a series of lies to intimidate the former attorney general into cutting this deal. She told them they were on very thin ice, that this was dangerous ground to be on in attempting to interfere in the prosecution. No wonder the Liberals on the justice committee did not want this heard. It was because of the damaging, corrosive effect on the Prime Minister's credibility and a judgment he was making.

On December 5, Gerry Butts said that he did not like the law, that it was a Harper law and that he could just somehow ignore it. Then he said, when the former attorney general was warning him about political interference, that they would not get through this without “some interference”.

Fortunately, Gerry Butts has left, but Katie Telford is still there, and Katie Telford said she was not interested in the question of legalities. People who do not care about the rule of law should not be anywhere near the exercise of legislative authority.

This is a question the Prime Minister needs to be asked. This is why the justice committee should have done its work, but it did not, and it did not because Liberal members on that committee have become hand puppets of the Prime Minister's Office and have disgraced their position and have left us now open to the OECD.

What do we tell the OECD when Canada is willing to remove the attorney general, when Canada has a Prime Minister who is willing to blow through the President of the Treasury Board, the former attorney general, his chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council in order to push through a deferred public prosecution that the prosecutor said SNC-Lavalin was not eligible for? What do we tell the OECD when the Prime Minister is still suggesting day after day in the House that the government is going to go through with this, that it has a new attorney general and is still talking about moving forward with it? I find this fascinating.

Just what is the Prime Minister willing to do to get this deferred public prosecution? He has burned his bridges on reconciliation and he has burned his bridges as the feminist Prime Minister and he has burned his bridges with Canadians in terms of trust, yet he is still doggedly pursuing the deferred public prosecution, even though the independent office of public prosecutions had to set up a Twitter account to say that it had to remain independent. That is the issue that the OECD is concerned about.

The OECD says there cannot be international rules of law that allow companies to bribe officials around the world. SNC has been barred for 10 years by the World Bank for corrupt practices. If a Canadian company is going to be charged in its home jurisdiction, it cannot just call the Prime Minister's Office and say “make it go away”.

That is the issue here, which is why five former attorneys general have been asking for a police investigation into the actions of the Prime Minister's Office. Why? It is because the former attorney general for Ontario, Liberal Michael Bryant, said he has never seen such a brazen and reckless abuse of authority.

We need the former attorney general to be able to speak, to respond to the testimony of Gerald Butts, to explain what happened in the period when she was removed. We need those questions answered, and the Prime Minister needs to understand that his credibility is getting further and further eroded.

I heard the Liberal voice for the SNC scandal tell us today that the government now has a special adviser. Oh, my God. How do we explain to the OECD that the Prime Minister's idea of a special adviser is to take someone off the Liberal fundraising circuit, someone who is out raising money for the Liberal Party right now, to oversee this? How can we tell the OECD that this will be a robust alternative to an independent all-party investigation? That does not cut it.

Until we have all the participants in this case brought forward and made accountable, until we have an opportunity to understand just how far the Prime Minister is willing to go to subvert the law, to obstruct justice, and have key staff like the finance minister and his staff interfere, Canada will be seen by the OECD and other international bodies as some kind of backwoods crony kingdom for the Prime Minister and the small group around him, who protect CEOs of a company that is not eligible for a deferred public prosecution. These CEOs themselves have said that 9,000 jobs are not at risk.

I will close on this. Just before this case broke, all the senior Liberal cabinet ministers and all the senior officials participated in a special function with SNC-Lavalin. They were the gatekeepers of the great privatization agenda of the Liberal government, but the jobs we are talking about are public jobs. They are jobs that are done by civil servants. They are jobs that are done in municipalities. Then we see the Liberal government, knowing that the company was facing charges, hosting a major event with all key Liberal cabinet ministers and SNC.

This shows that the government never took the issue of the rule of law seriously for a single minute, and that is what has damaged the Prime Minister's credibility. This is going to drag the Prime Minister down until he comes clean with Canadians about the interference and obstruction from his office.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about accountability and trustworthiness and so forth, which the member alluded to a great deal. I would like to quote something from the Canadian Press:

The Federal Court of Appeal says it can't intervene in a case where more than five dozen NDP MPs were ordered to repay $2.7 million in expenses the House of Commons says was actually for partisan purposes.

That is being very kind. I was here when the NDP, including its previous leader, stole from Canadians. That was the bottom line.

My friend seems to be so focused on integrity every time he stands, talking virtually from day one in 2015 about integrity and accountability, yet the NDP members continue to want to deny that they broke the law when in fact they did.

Will he admit that maybe the NDP should be paying back those tax dollars?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the parliamentary secretary to choose his words wisely when he is speaking in the House and would hope that he would take back the word that he mentioned that he very well knows is not allowed in the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, without reservation, I would take back the word “stole”.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is not often that I cross the Chair here, but I am very surprised you would ask him to use wise words. This is the Ezra Levant of the Liberal Party, so I am never surprised at what he comes up with and I always know that when he goes there, they really are now scrambling. They are now in the deep, deep water.

I would ask my friend why he does not write a letter to the OECD and say it is not that we were involved in interfering in an international bribery investigation; rather, it was the bad NDP, which six years ago did something we did not like.

That is the kind of thing that makes people realize that the government is in deep, deep water, because members cannot answer. The Liberals shut down committees. They will not allow the former attorney general to testify and they have lost a number of cabinet ministers and another backbencher today. I would say that the member needs to really look around and try to start doing the healing in his own benches.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, we watched as the new Prime Minister chose his cabinet. He defended his Attorney General because he had full confidence in her. He knew that she was the one the Liberal government wanted as its attorney general. However, he found out that the Attorney General did not simply hearken to every word that was inappropriate to him; she stood her ground.

To my colleague who gave his speech, with regard to the issue of the former attorney general standing her ground and coming to the justice committee, now the Liberal government has backed away from it. My colleague talked about the five attorneys general who have spoken up. I wonder if he would expand on that.

One Liberal attorney general from Queen's Park in Ontario said that if any leader or any premier ever asked him to do such a thing, he would immediately pick up the phone, dial 911, and call the police. That is the significance of what we saw the Prime Minister doing. I am wondering if the member feels that Canadians have a full understanding of the depth of the law that has been broken here.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have enormous respect for the fact that the former attorney general said this is wrong. That is about integrity. I have had many disagreements with the former attorney general about policy, but she was willing to stand up with her career and say she would not break the law, and that takes integrity.

I would like to give another shout-out to the former president of the Treasury Board, who I have enormous respect for and I think is probably the best we have seen on the Liberal benches. She said she had to step down as a matter of ethical and constitutional responsibility, so I am actually shocked when I look at the rest of the Liberals who sit there and think it is perfectly okay to remain in support of a justice committee that shuts down an investigation that has cost them two of their most credible women cabinet ministers.

[Michael Barrett, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to be sharing my time with the member for Brandon—Souris this afternoon.

I would like to offer a quick snapshot of what we are talking about today. We have a very simple request, and that is that the former attorney general be allowed to speak.

This is not a nothingburger or a distraction, as the Liberal government has claimed it is. We had a veterans affairs minister who resigned after she lost confidence in this Prime Minister. We had the treasury board president resign after losing confidence in this Prime Minister. We had the Prime Minister's best friend and principal secretary resign. We had the Clerk of the Privy Council resign. We had five former attorneys general call for an RCMP investigation. We had a former Liberal attorney general say that if what is alleged to have happened had happened while he was the attorney general, he would have dialed 911. This is a criminal act, he said. We have the OECD anti-bribery and corruption unit watching very closely, concerned that Canada has breached its international obligations.

If all of that is not enough, we had the Liberal-dominated justice committee slam the gavel and pull the curtains shut when we called for the former attorney general to be able to rebut the testimony that was given and to be able to speak without her hands being tied behind her back. The order in council that has been given does not grant sufficient latitude for her to speak about everything that we are talking about today.

We have heard the government say that other people have spoken about a time that is not covered in the order in council, and nothing has happened to them. However, we know what has happened to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. The former attorney general has very able legal counsel. She has obviously been well advised to tread very carefully and to operate only within the exact confines of that order in council.

The justice committee meeting was adjourned last week when a non-member, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell was trotted in, put his hand up, moved to adjourn, and the meeting was adjourned 24 minutes into the meeting. It was unbelievable.

While Canadians demand answers and the opposition seeks the truth, we have a government that is committed to a cover-up. It is no surprise, though, and it was reaffirmed for Canadians and members of the justice committee when just yesterday the last meeting of the justice committee to study this very serious matter was closed to the media and closed to the public. Government members said that there was nothing more to see here. They said that because that is exactly what the Prime Minister's Office told them to say.

In this very place, we have asked for a public inquiry and we have given all members of this House the opportunity to support that call for an independent and non-partisan, non-PMO-controlled body to hold that public inquiry, where surely the former attorney general would be allowed to speak and where surely we would get to the truth, but no. The government said no. The Liberal members in this House denied that request.

We asked for the Prime Minister to appear at the justice committee. That request was also voted down as part of the Liberal cover-up of this very serious matter.

A claim about jobs has been lobbed in response to our concerns, over and over again, by the government. With respect to these 9,000 jobs that Liberals allege to have been jeopardy, there is not a shred of evidence. Not a single line of text or a 140-character tweet, as the government often communicates their messages in, was offered as evidence of a risk to jobs.

In fact, evidence has been mounting that quite the opposite is true, that no jobs are at risk. Through covenants with the Quebec pension fund and back-ordered work in the billions of dollars, in the CEO's own words, the company has no jobs at risk.

This was very much an effort by a Liberal-connected company to receive one kind of justice while the rest of Canadians are able to receive a very different kind.

Since the former attorney general gave her shocking testimony, there have been constant claims of “he said, she said”. In reality, he said, and what the Prime Minister will let her say, is the case. That is because the Prime Minister will not let her speak. The gag order is in place.

Let us look at this “he said, she said”. It began with a Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, appearing before the justice committee to testify to his involvement and knowledge of the political interference. According to Mr. Wernick's testimony, the Prime Minister and his department continued to pressure the former attorney general even after she told the Prime Minister she would not overrule the decision to allow SNC's case to proceed to trial.

Mr. Wernick said:

The question that I think you're going to have to come to a view with, as will the Ethics Commissioner, is inappropriate pressure.

Michael Wernick continued:

There's pressure to get it right on every decision: to approve, to not approve, to act, to not act. I am quite sure the minister felt pressure to get it right. Part of my conversation with her on December 19 was conveying context that there were a lot of people worried about what would happen—the consequences not for her, the consequences for the workers and the communities and the suppliers.

While acknowledging that there was, in fact, pressure on the former attorney general to overturn her final decision, we also now know that the Clerk of the Privy Council also gave unregistered access to a lobbyist from SNC. The chair of the board was able to make a call directly to the Clerk of the Privy Council on this issue.

It was only after a second appearance at the justice committee that we got that answer. As members can see, sometimes these second appearances bear very interesting fruit.

The account given by the former attorney general detailing many meetings, calls and electronic correspondence included a cast of very interesting players from the government, including the Prime Minister, the finance minister, the Privy Council clerk, the Prime Minister's chief of staff and more. However, the justice committee members have not heard from many of these witnesses, because it would be inconvenient to the government's narrative.

The Liberals were very happy to allow what, in many cases, amounted to smears on the former attorney general, saying that perhaps she experienced it differently and that if she did not like what was happening, she should have resigned. We heard from one of the witnesses the parliamentary secretary referenced earlier, a former judge. That judge said that the job of the attorney general in that instance is to stay in place and to maintain the independence of our judicial system by not resigning and by withstanding that pressure.

Canadians are rightly concerned about what has happened, and Canadians continue their calls to hear from the former attorney general. The question that has been asked is what they could be afraid of her saying. If she has testified, and they say she has given a full account, what more could she add? We would like to find out. The former attorney general has said that she has more to add. We are calling on all members of this House to allow that gag order to be lifted and to let her speak.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his contributions today and at the justice committee.

Some statements have been made, in the context of this afternoon's debate about the justice committee and the work it is doing, that have, in fact, questioned the character of the members of the justice committee. I think that actually does not do fairness, or justice, if colleagues will pardon the pun, to the work they have done on numerous pieces of legislation, including on human trafficking and on access to justice. It has now agreed to a study on online hatred.

The question I have for the member opposite, who is a new member of that committee, is this. If the gravamen of what transpired, going all the way back to that original Globe and Mail article, is the notion of pressure, inappropriate or otherwise, with respect to the issue of a prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, what I put to the member opposite is that the only person who can intervene in a situation about an ongoing prosecution is the Attorney General of Canada. That is pursuant to section 10 and section 15 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act. Once the former attorney general became a former attorney general and was moved to become the minister of veterans affairs, she could no longer be pressured, because she had no statutory role to fulfill. Therefore, what would be the purpose of waiving solicitor-client privilege in respect of things that related to her time as minister of veterans affairs or as the member for Vancouver Granville?

[Michael Barrett]

Madam Speaker, that is very much the issue at hand. We know that the Attorney General is the only one who can grant a deferred prosecution agreement. There was the whole conversation about the Shawcross doctrine, which the judge who appeared before us described as a flimsy argument or legal ground for their engaging in this.

What we know is that the former attorney general was fired for not doing what the government asked. That is why she is the former attorney general. The conversations following her firing, which followed that cabinet shuffle, are germane to this issue. They relate directly to the core of what has happened here. She would not do what the Prime Minister said, so he fired her. He fired an accomplished minister and former Crown prosecutor and parliamentarian because she would not do his bidding.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on the justice committee, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. I heard the member opposite talk about the justice committee and allegations that the character of each member of that committee was being maligned in this place.

I was very fortunate to work on a committee that got along very well and produced unanimous reports. Then, all of a sudden, this hot potato was dropped on that committee. It occurred to me that things looked very different. It occurred to me that things were being directed from elsewhere.

Through you, Madame Speaker, I ask the member, as a new member who observed for the first time how that committee was functioning, whether he felt that the members were acting as independently as the Prime Minister has told this House they act.

[Michael Barrett]

Madam Speaker, I have had a brief opportunity to work with my colleague on the justice committee. When I joined the committee, I was told about the great bipartisanship that occurred and the good work it has done.

There was a real juxtaposition between what has happened at the justice committee and hearing from my colleague, who is the vice-chair of the committee, and hearing from the Conservative vice-chair as well, that what has transpired since this issue came before the justice committee is a great departure from what they have known and the atmosphere and the character of those other members. This is not about their character, and it is not about what usually happens. It is a marked departure from that, and it very clearly is the effect of PMO interference in the independence of that committee.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, before I begin to lay out my arguments as to why I support this opposition motion, I want to say how disappointed I am with the Liberal MPs on the justice committee who shut down the investigation into the alleged political interference with the former attorney general. The Liberal majority on the justice committee shut down its own justice committee to cover up the truth, which is truly undemocratic, if not illegal.

As extraordinary as the former attorney general's testimony was, we cannot forget that the Prime Minister is using his power and his office to ensure that we do not hear the rest of the story. It is unfathomable that the Prime Minister will not permit the former attorney general to answer direct questions regarding meetings and interactions after he removed her from her portfolio that she herself acknowledged were relevant.

If there was one day to walk into this chamber and check our political allegiances at the door, it should be today. The basis of my speech today is to convince Liberal MPs that they should vote in favour of calling on the Prime Minister to waive full solicitor-client privilege and all cabinet confidences to allow the member for Vancouver Granville to tell the rest of the story. We must get to the bottom of the alleged political interference that was put on the former attorney general by the Prime Minister himself and other Liberal government officials, as determined from the provided testimony. Anything else would be a grave injustice to the rule of law and to the democratic principles we were elected to uphold.

I know that constituents have been calling my Liberal colleagues. I know constituents have been calling our members as well. I know that our Liberal colleagues' constituents have been calling, emailing and speaking to them about this serious allegation of political interference.

When was the last time major news networks broadcast a parliamentary committee from start to finish? When was the last time millions of Canadians read the transcript or followed a committee meeting as closely as this one that took place mere weeks ago? For those who thought this was an inside Queensway story or a story being listened to only by Ottawa insiders, I have news for them. This is not an academic lesson or a political science lecture. This is reality. People are watching. People are paying attention, and people want answers. They do not want the Liberal or Conservative biases. They just want the facts.

If MPs do not stand up today and vote in favour of this motion, I do not know if Canadians will ever get to the full, unaltered truth. Maybe that cover-up is truly what the Liberals want, to turn a blind eye to the truth.

I know that if Liberal MPs vote in favour of this motion and the former attorney general is allowed to speak, this could very well put many Liberal members in jeopardy come October. However, if we are only here to make sure that we are re-elected rather than to seek the truth and defend and demand justice, even when it makes us uncomfortable, I would argue that it is time to hang up our coats and call it a day. The strength of one's convictions should allow each and every member in this House to set aside partisanship, even if just this one time, to stand and be counted when it matters most.

We were not elected to protect those in powerful positions. Our job is not to sweep injustice under the rug as if it were only a nuisance. We were elected to defend the very pillars of our democracy, the rule of law, and to always put the interests of Canadians first.

In politics, there are tough choices. Today is one of those gut-check moments when a little introspection would do us all a little good. I want all Liberal MPs to think about how they would vote if this alleged inappropriate pressure was placed on an attorney general under a Conservative or New Democratic government. We all know the answer to that question. We all know that the argument that “it wasn't illegal” is contemptible and downright disingenuous. If there is a bar in determining what is right and what is wrong, then this is a sad day in our democracy.

The reason this issue has been on the front page of every newspaper and in every newscast is that this is not a member of the opposition making these charges. It is the former attorney general, a current Liberal MP, who is willing to put everything on the line.

In all my years of politics, I have never witnessed anything so stunning as the testimony of the former attorney general at the justice committee. There are a million reasons the government and the Prime Minister would prefer that she not tell the rest of the story.

However, I cannot for the life of me think of a single reason, other than to speak the truth, for her to want to come back to the justice committee and ensure that we know exactly what transpired. I will let that sink in for a moment.

The former attorney general knew full well that there were obvious challenges when she previously testified, but she put all that aside. She has faced relentless attacks from some who wish she would just go away. Some have even gone as far as smearing her or attacking her motives. There are some who could care less about the truth and are only worried about their own political survival. Throughout all this, she has risen above these most difficult and trying circumstances.

This is why I am appealing to my Liberal colleagues to vote in favour of this motion. The former attorney general was willing to speak the truth and let the chips fall where they may. I implore her fellow Liberal colleagues to show the same audacity. They should join their fellow Liberal colleagues who have spoken out.

No one is asking any member of Parliament to rip up their Liberal membership or bolt from caucus. I am not asking that they defect or endorse Conservative principles either. This has nothing to do with ideology or even the next election. All I am asking is for members to give their Liberal colleague and former attorney general the chance to be able to tell the full story. I am asking them to let her provide the necessary testimony for the ethics committee to do its job.

For those who think the former attorney general needs to leave her caucus, I remind them that she did not suddenly wake up and decide she was no longer a Liberal. She is a proud Liberal, and the fact that she wants to run again this October is a testament to her principles.

We must rise to the occasion and put aside our political fidelities. Let us call on the government to waive full solicitor-client privilege and all cabinet confidences and let the former attorney general finish her testimony.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:15 p.m., and this being the final supply day in the period ending March 26, 2019, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.