Andrew Scheer

[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—

[Justice, February 20th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, to move forward from what?

The Prime Minister is saying nothing happened. All along he has been saying nothing improper was done. All along he has been saying he did not do anything wrong and people in his office did not do anything wrong, yet we have the facts that the former attorney general was removed from her post and then resigned from cabinet, and the principal secretary has now resigned.

What exactly was Mr. Butts moving on from if nothing improper happened?

[Justice, February 20th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, people who are innocent usually do not have trouble answering simple questions, especially when they are yes or no answers.

Gerald Butts claims to be innocent, but innocent people do not tend to resign from their jobs. Did the Prime Minister ask Mr. Butts to resign, yes or no?

[Justice, February 20th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, On December 5, when Gerald Butts met with the attorney general at a hotel in downtown Ottawa, it is clear that the SNC-Lavalin case was discussed. Who asked for that meeting?

[Justice, February 20th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, again, why did the Prime Minister leave the impression with the attorney general that there was something going on? He said that the former attorney general “asked me if I was directing her, or going to direct her, to take a particular decision and I, of course, said no.”

Therefore, the question remains this. Why did the former attorney general think that she needed to ask that? If the decision was already made, why would she have to go and get clarification if he was not in fact attempting to interfere?

[Justice, February 20th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can try to hide behind talking points and other members of his Liberal team, but this is about the independence of our judicial system. This is about the rule of law.

The Prime Minister has stated that there were many discussions going on, which was why the former attorney general “asked me if I was directing her, or going to direct her, to take a particular decision and I, of course, said no.”

Therefore, the simple question is this. If a decision had already been made on September 4, why would she have to ask him if he was directing her?

[Justice, February 20th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, during the December 5 meeting between Gerald Butts and the former attorney general, it is reported that Mr. Butts told her to go and see the Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick. Now, if the decision had already been made by the independent top prosecutor in Canada on September 4 and if the Prime Minister had already indicated that it was the attorney general's decision to be made, why would she have to go and visit the Clerk of the Privy Council?

[Justice, February 20th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, between September 4, 2018 and the cabinet shuffle on January 14, 2019, did the Prime Minister express his support for a special agreement for SNC-Lavalin?

There are only two answers: yes or no.

[Justice, February 20th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, it is so telling that the Prime Minister cannot even answer this kind of simple question. These are not the actions and this is not the behaviour of someone who is innocent of what he is being accused of.

On September 4, the independent director of public prosecutions made a decision. The Prime Minister and his team then went to work and had several meetings with the former attorney general. In any of those meetings, did he ever and will he today indicate whether or not he supports SNC-Lavalin getting a special deal, yes or no?