Candice Bergen

[Request for Emergency Debate, February 28th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to seek leave for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing an important matter requiring urgent consideration pursuant to Standing Order 52.

Yesterday, we heard compelling, convincing and very credible testimony from the former attorney general at the justice committee. She told of unwanted, sustained and coordinated pressure that came to bear on her from the highest offices of this country, from the office of the Minister of Finance, from the Prime Minister's Office, from the Prime Minister himself, and from the Clerk of the Privy Council. She told of pressure that came to bear on her to interfere in a criminal trial.

This has caused a crisis of confidence in the Prime Minister and in his cabinet, certainly in the Clerk of the Privy Council, in the Minister of Finance and in the current Attorney General. Her testimony was meticulous. It was detailed. It was believable.

We have over the last three weeks been asking the Prime Minister about this. His response, from three weeks to yesterday, has not given us any confidence that he is being transparent. He in fact said yesterday that the former attorney general, whom he appointed and whom all of us have been trusting, he has been trusting for the last three years, his caucus has been trusting and the country has been trusting, was lying.

Somebody is lying, and I would say that it is not the former attorney general. We need to find out what has happened, and we need to get to the bottom of this.

We heard testimony that the Clerk of the Privy Council, in putting pressure on her, referred to board meetings of SNC-Lavalin. We heard that the Prime Minister, in putting pressure on her, referred to his own re-election. There were hours of very credible testimony given yesterday that begs that this chamber discuss this issue.

We are certainly at a crisis. As opposition, we will not have a day to bring anything forward for 19 more days. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we will be rising for a two-week constituency break, and we will not have an opportunity to address this.

This is a crisis, and that is why I am asking that we be given the opportunity to discuss this during an emergency debate.

[Justice, February 27th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, if we need to hear all perspectives, then we need to hear her full perspective.

Will the Prime Minister do this very simple thing. Will he write a letter right now, he has just over an hour, and tell the former attorney general that she can speak about the time when she was veterans affairs minister, she can talk about their conversations in Vancouver before she resigned and she can talk about what she told cabinet last week. It is very simple. Will he do that right now?

[Justice, February 27th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is preventing the former attorney general from speaking. She specifically said that he is preventing her from speaking about her time when she was veterans affairs minister, about the conversations they had just before she resigned, specifically in Vancouver, and about what she told cabinet last week.

Why is it that the Prime Minister only wants his version of their interactions to be disclosed? What is he hiding?

[Justice, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, we know the Prime Minister sent in his highest-ranking people, who speak on his behalf, to pressure and persuade the former attorney general through her chief of staff. Canadians deserve to know what kind of pressure was applied to their attorney general. The only person who knows is the Prime Minister, and the buck stops with him. Therefore, will he come to the justice committee? Will he finally stop evading and answer some questions truthfully and openly?

[Justice, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot seem to take no for an answer. When the former attorney general said that, no, she was not going to give SNC-Lavalin a deal, he was not happy, so he sent in his two top people, Telford and Butts, the two people who spoke directly for him, to do some persuading.

On December 18, they meet with the chief of staff to the then attorney general to discuss the SNC-Lavalin deal. What did Telford and Butts say at that meeting, and what did they threaten would happen if SNC-Lavalin did not get the deal?

[Business of the House, February 21st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I know the government House leader was quite busy today during question period not answering questions, but I think this one she will be able to answer. I have full confidence that she will be able to answer what we will be doing for the remainder of this week in the House, as well as next week.

[Justice, February 21st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, here is the simple question we have been asking all day yesterday and today, and to which we still have not received an answer. Who called for the meeting between the Prime Minister and the former attorney general on September 17? Who asked for that meeting?

[Justice, February 21st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, what we know and what is undisputed is that subsequent to the September 4 decision that was delivered to SNC-Lavalin, there were numerous meetings between the Prime Minister and the former attorney general, and even between the Clerk of the Privy Council and the former attorney general.

We have also heard on numerous occasions, through media reports, that the former attorney general felt pressured. We are hearing from the Prime Minister that his description is that it was not pressure but vigorous discussion. Again, we seem to have it that the Prime Minister sees things one way and the former attorney general sees them a different way.

[Points of Order, February 20th, 2019]

Could the member please not yell? Could I please have some respect? I know the Liberals do not like it when strong women speak.

Mr. Speaker, we would like to get some guidance from you as to whether the Prime Minister's vote and the vote of the current Attorney General should be waived, because they really should have abstained from this. If they do not, there are other measures we can take, which include going to the Ethics Commissioner. However, I think it would be cleaner, and probably a little wiser, if they would just abstain from this vote.

[Points of Order, February 20th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the former attorney general indicated that she abstained from this vote because she believes she has a personal interest in the result of this vote, I would look to you for guidance. I think both the Prime Minister and the current Attorney General, who is making decisions regarding client-solicitor privilege and whether it should be waived—