Andrew Scheer

[Justice, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, whatever the justification the Prime Minister is going to try to use, he needs to remember one thing: interfering in a criminal court case is always wrong.

The Prime Minister thinks he is above the law, that he can use his power to get his well-connected friends off the hook. That is not the way Canada works.

If the decision was the former attorney general's to make and hers alone, then why did the Prime Minister continually apply pressure to get her to change her mind?

[Justice, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has finally found a line that it seems like he might stick with for more than a day. His story has changed nearly every single day since this scandal first broke, and Canadians deserve answers.

The Prime Minister first said that the allegations contained in The Globe and Mail story were false, that no direction or even pressure was applied on the former attorney general. Now we find out from the Clerk of the Privy Council that the Prime Minister's fingerprints are all over this sleazy affair to let his friends off the hook.

Once again, if the decision was the former attorney general's and hers alone to make, why did the Prime Minister try so often to get her to change her mind?

[Justice, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, once again, he cannot provide simple, straightforward answers.

Contrary to the Prime Minister's assertions, the report is true. He met with the Clerk of the Privy Council at noon on December 19. Immediately afterward, the clerk called the former attorney general to inform her that the Prime Minister was quite anxious.

When the Prime Minister ordered the clerk to call the former attorney general, what did he tell him?

[Justice, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, on February 7, the Prime Minister stated that The Globe and Mail report about how he pressured the former attorney general on the SNC-Lavalin case was “false”.

On Thursday, we learned from the Clerk of the Privy Council that there was in fact a concerted effort to interfere in the case against SNC-Lavalin by seeking to influence the then attorney general.

Can the Prime Minister tell us which version of the story is true?

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question as well. Of course, we are all looking forward to tomorrow's testimony. We hope that the former attorney general will be allowed to speak. The Prime Minister still refuses to waive that privilege. The Clerk of the Privy Council indicated that there was no privilege protection for what went on there; we certainly find it interesting that the Prime Minister seems to ignore that.

Honestly, to my colleague, we are past the point where new information could somehow change the direction that this investigation needs to go. We know that sustained pressure was applied. That is inappropriate. That is why the Prime Minister needs to answer for it.

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very excellent question that speaks to the heart of this matter. We only have to look at the chronology to determine that something improper and perhaps even illegal was happening.

The top prosecutor, the independent chief legal person who has the ability to make these determinations, ruled in her independent capacity that SNC-Lavalin did not qualify for one of these new special deals that the Liberals had created.

Many meetings took place between that company's lobbyists and government officials, all throughout meetings with the former attorney general in attempting to get her to change her position, which was to let the independent prosecutor continue on with her work.

At a key meeting in late December, the former principal adviser, Gerald Butts, met with the former attorney general and talked about consequences. Perhaps the most telling detail of all was that after she refused to give in to those demands from the Prime Minister's Office, the former attorney general was removed from her post. It is impossible to conclude that this pressure was not intended to get a different outcome, because she lost her job for standing up to those in the PMO who were trying to subvert the course of justice.

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have enough time to explain to the hon. member why we on this side of the House, and indeed Canadians, do not trust the government to become transparent on this issue.

What the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed last week was explosive. It completely contradicted the line that the Prime Minister had been trying to convince Canadians with for the past few weeks. We are now into the third or fourth week of this affair, and the government still refuses to give simple answers to simple questions.

The Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed that there was a sustained and coordinated effort to get the former attorney general to change her mind. The clerk said that the decision was with the former attorney general. She had already made the decision. She said no. She said no. She was asked to overrule an independent prosecutor in the matter of an independent court proceeding, and she said no.

If the decision was hers to make, I would like to ask the hon. member this: Why did the Prime Minister go to work for the next few months to get her to change her mind?

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2019]

moved:

That, given the Prime Minister's comments of Wednesday, February 20, 2019, that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is the appropriate place for Canadians to get answers on the SNC-Lavalin affair, and given his alleged direct involvement in a sustained effort to influence SNC-Lavalin's criminal prosecution, the House order the Prime Minister to appear, testify and answer questions at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, under oath, for a televised two-hour meeting, before Friday, March 15, 2019.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Milton.

The SNC-Lavalin case has caught the attention of Canadians across the country for one very simple reason: it goes to the very heart of what makes Canada a fair and democratic country. As I have already said in the House, we are a nation that is founded on the rule of law. No one should be given special treatment, regardless of their status, wealth or political connections.

Quite simply, what we have seen unfold over the last two weeks is a textbook case of corporate and government corruption, a story in which a corporate giant with deep pockets and deeper government connections tried to leverage its backroom influence to avoid a criminal conviction and in which those in the Prime Minister's Office it leaned on were all too willing to help.

We now know exactly what happened. Privy Council clerk Michael Wernick's testimony last week at the justice committee shone a whole new light on the entire affair. We know that SNC-Lavalin successfully lobbied to have a special provision written into the Criminal Code that would allow it to escape a criminal conviction on bribery charges.

We know that the director of public prosecutions independently decided not to make use of that provision. We know that the former attorney general told her superiors in the Privy Council Office and the PMO that she would not use her authority to overrule that decision.

Thanks to Mr. Wernick's testimony, we now know what happened after that: an unsolicited, coordinated and sustained effort by the Prime Minister himself to get the former attorney general to change her mind, to overrule the independent Crown prosecutor and to let SNC-Lavalin off the hook anyway.

It was unsolicited. The attorney general did not seek input from the Prime Minister on her decision. Her decision was already made.

It was coordinated. The Prime Minister dispatched his closest political adviser and his top civil servant to lean on her, impressing on her the “consequences” if she did not give in to their demands.

It was sustained, with multiple attempts to secure a different decision from the attorney general in the weeks and months since her decision had been made.

It all adds up to the Prime Minister improperly, if not illegally, interfering in a criminal prosecution.

Up until now, the Prime Minister has not given Canadians a clear account of his actions. Since the story first broke in The Globe and Mail almost three weeks ago, he has changed his version of events multiple times. He smeared the former attorney general's reputation. He blamed everyone, from his own staff to Scott Brison. He even tried to blame Stephen Harper.

Even after Mr. Wernick's testimony, which pulled the curtain back on just how deeply involved the Prime Minister was, he has remained as evasive and elusive as ever. However, he can no longer avoid the fact that he himself was at the centre of an unprecedented attempt to obstruct the course of justice.

That brings us to my motion today. The time has come for the Prime Minister to be transparent. He must account for his actions. He must answer for what he has done, and he must do so before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The SNC-Lavalin case was referred to the justice committee. In the beginning, the Liberals on the committee voted against our motion. Two weeks ago, the opposition members proposed an comprehensive list of nine key witnesses to question, including a number of senior staffers from the Prime Minister's Office and the former attorney general's office. Under strict orders from the government, the Liberals on the committee refused to allow any of those witnesses to appear. The cover-up had begun.

However, as public pressure continues to mount, the Liberals are slowly beginning to back down. The former attorney general has been called to appear, which apparently will take place tomorrow morning, and as I said earlier, Mr. Wernick's testimony last week brought clarity to just how high up this matter goes.

Since its abrupt change of heart on the justice committee's work, the government cannot stop singing its praises. Perhaps sensing that a criminal investigation is coming, the government has a new-found confidence in the justice committee's ability to provide Canadians with answers on this affair.

Last Friday, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said the following in the House: “We have confidence in the members' work on the justice committee. I think they must do their work.”

Those were the government House leader's words.

Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister himself said in this Chamber, “...I have tremendous confidence in the members of the justice committee, who will be moving forward on the investigation on all sides.” We will take him at his word, but I have tabled this motion today because the Prime Minister, and only the Prime Minister, can provide answers to these questions. He has been implicated in this affair, and it is time for him to answer for it.

The Prime Minister promised that he would be different when he was asking Canadians for their votes. He said so right on the pages of the Liberals' campaign platform in 2015. Although Liberal members may not want to hear it now, I will remind them that their own campaign document said, “As the saying goes, sunlight is the world's best disinfectant. Liberals will shed new light on the government and ensure that it is focused on the people it is meant to serve: Canadians.”

After the election he also said, “Openness and transparency will be our constant companions, and we will work to restore Canadians’ trust in their government and in our democracy.”

Canadians may have taken him at his word, but he has taken Canadians for fools with his actions in the last few weeks.

I do not need to tell anyone on this side of the aisle just how badly this affair has harmed their reputation in the eyes of Canadians. Canadians feel betrayed. They are wondering how a Prime Minister who came to power only three years ago, promising to be different, has so quickly gone back to the old Liberal ways and so quickly demonstrated the kind of secrecy and hypocrisy that Liberals have become famous for.

However, this motion gives the Prime Minister the opportunity to regain some of the confidence he has lost.

I am asking him to support this motion and to ask his entire Liberal caucus to do so as well.

Canadians deserve answers, and he is the only one who can give them those answers.

I invite all members of the Liberal Party to do the right thing. We know that you are under tremendous pressure from political operatives within your own party who are trying to protect themselves—trying to protect themselves possibly from even facing criminal charges themselves—but you have an opportunity and a responsibility to do the right thing, to stand up for our independent system of justice to prove that no one in Canada gets a special deal just because he or she is rich and powerful. There is one set of rules for every Canadian.

Members of the Liberal Party have the opportunity to do that today, and I invite them to do the right thing.

[Justice, February 20th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just expressed his confidence in the justice committee's work to get to the bottom of this very serious scandal. Last week the government instructed Liberal members of that committee to block Conservative and NDP attempts to get a full witness list in front of the committee. The members of the committee admitted that they received that list from government offices.

Therefore, if the Prime Minister has so much confidence in the justice committee's work, will he allow Gerald Butts to testify under oath at that very committee?

[Justice, February 20th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon the Prime Minister to provide some transparency in this very serious scandal. These are major allegations of interference in an independent prosecution.

Outside of an investigation by the RCMP, the only way for the Prime Minister to clear the air is by having a public inquiry. Canadians are tired of taking his word for his version of events. They are tired of Liberals getting together with other Liberals to come up with a storyline they will then try to hide behind.

Yes or no, will the Prime Minister agree to holding a public inquiry so Canadians can get answers to these questions right—