Andrew Scheer

[Justice, February 27th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals were dragged kicking and screaming to the justice committee before they even started to allow people to give testimony. They are still only allowing half the story to be told, the half of the story the Prime Minister is comfortable hearing.

There is more to this story. Something happened. Something was said to the former attorney general or someone in the Prime Minister's Office validated her accusations that she lost her job because she would not let his friends off the hook. Is that why the Prime Minister will not waive full privilege in this matter?

[Justice, February 27th, 2019]

Check the fine print, Mr. Speaker, because there is an important detail that the Prime Minister is leaving out. Something happened between the time the former attorney general lost her job for speaking truth to power until the day she resigned from cabinet that the Prime Minister is desperate to keep hidden from Canadians.

Could the Prime Minister confirm that sometime in that period of time something was said to the former attorney general that proved she lost her job because she stood up to him?

[Justice, February 27th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, that is what the Prime Minister would like Canadians to believe, but the facts tell otherwise. He is refusing to let his former attorney general share her entire story.

Here is what she had to say yesterday, “the Order in Council leaves in place whatever restraints there are on my ability to speak freely about matters that occurred after I left the post of Attorney General.”

What happened between the time she was removed as attorney general to the day that she resigned that the Prime Minister is so desperate to keep hidden?

[Justice, February 27th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that he is pleased that the former attorney general can share her perspective on SNC-Lavalin. Now we know why. He is still dictating what she can and cannot say about this Liberal corruption scandal.

If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, why is he still trying to silence the former attorney general?

[Justice, February 26th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, again, she is saying things that just are not true. We know they tried to interfere with an independent legal officer. They tried to get the former attorney general to change her mind. She said no. She said no on multiple occasions. In her view, and the view of the independent Crown prosecutor, SNC-Lavalin, based on serious corruption and bribery charges, did not qualify for one of these deals the way the Liberals themselves wrote it. Now they are trying to hide behind crocodile tears that no one is believing.

Here is a very specific question for the House leader. Did anyone in the Liberal government communicate to SNC-Lavalin—

[Justice, February 26th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, we know that cannot be their motivation. We know that because when they wrote the law they specifically excluded the national economic interest. They wrote the law and then tried to get the former attorney general to break the law. She said no. Apparently people in the Prime Minister's Office would not take no for an answer.

Why would the Prime Minister not accept the decision of the independent prosecutor of Canada?

[Justice, February 26th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the government is continually trying to find new ways to justify the political interference in an ongoing court case by the Prime Minister and his key advisers. The law on this is actually very clear. If an organization, like SNC-Lavalin, is charged with bribery, then the law states, “the prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest”.

The former attorney general made her decision. She said no, so why did the Prime Minister not take no for an answer?

[Justice, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister cannot answer these questions, perhaps the government House leader can answer the question.

If she has so much faith in the justice committee now that it is finally starting to allow witnesses to appear, even though originally it seems her office directed the committee members not to allow that to happen—if she has so much confidence and faith in the justice committee's work, will Liberal members be supporting this motion before the House today to force the Prime Minister to attend and explain his actions?

[Justice, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, here is a very simple and easy question for the Prime Minister to answer.

On December 5, the Prime Minister's principal secretary met with the former attorney general in the bar at the Château Laurier. It appears that the purpose of that meeting was to put even more pressure on the former attorney general to change her mind and to allow a special deal to be made over the objections of independent Crown prosecutors.

Was the Prime Minister aware that his principal secretary was meeting with the former attorney general on December 5?

[Justice, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not seem to understand that it is not the Prime Minister's role to direct prosecutors and judges to give special deals to their friends.

The independent Crown prosecutor determined that SNC-Lavalin did not qualify. The former attorney general seems to have made up her mind that it did not qualify. That is when the Prime Minister and his office went to work with unwanted, coordinated and sustained pressure to force the former attorney general to let his well-connected friends off the hook.

If the Prime Minister is so sure that he did nothing wrong, will he appear before the justice committee to explain his actions?