Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be able to stand in the House and discuss this matter today, but it also brings great sadness because we find ourselves in a situation where, as parliamentarians, we are trying to force the government to do something that it should openly and honestly be embracing at this point in time.
As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out very well, the sordid saga of what has transpired here to date is one that warrants public investigation. It warrants justice committee investigation. Indeed, it very clearly warrants a light being shone on it so that we can understand exactly what happened, including whether or not there has been criminality and whether or not there has been political interference in a criminal prosecution.
I was very pleased and honoured to be able to sit with the justice committee last week as we discussed, in public, our concerns with respect to the matter, and indeed put forth a list of witnesses that we would like to hear on the matter. Unfortunately, as everybody knows, that was not accepted by the majority of Liberals in the committee. Indeed, there were very troubling comments made during that justice committee meeting that really underscore the importance of having a public inquiry.
First and foremost, it was said by a member on the committee that we were making hay out of nothing. As well, a member indicated that this was nothing more than a witch hunt. We have heard those stories from the south as well, and it does not seem to be working that well in the United States, so I do not know why they would choose the term “witch hunt” to be their lead line up here.
Most importantly, the chair of the committee, and indeed every single Liberal member on that committee, indicated, full-throated, that they believed the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office, and that these allegations were unfounded. That was why they opted to have a very narrow legal conference on what certain principles of law are, much like the one the parliamentary secretary read to us this morning in his defence of why the government does not want to have a public inquiry.
We are asking for this public inquiry today because, quite frankly, we have taken the proper steps. During the cabinet shuffle in late January and early February, it was very interesting that the former attorney general issued a 2,000-word written statement, detailing not only her accomplishments but also a warning. The warning was that we must speak truth to power, and that she spoke truth to power. Buried at the end of one of those paragraphs, which was very interesting to me, was when she said she expects that role to continue.
Why would the former attorney general say in a letter that she was concerned about world events where there is political interference trumping public policy, unless she herself had something to say about what had been transpiring within her party and within her cabinet?
We took the right path. We asked questions in the House. There were two questions. My colleague from Durham asked a question, and my colleague from Victoria asked a question about why the member had been fired from her position as attorney general.
The response was wholly inadequate, but more telling than being wholly inadequate was the fact that the Prime Minister did not take the opportunity to thank the minister for her work or say anything complimentary about her time as the minister. This was a glaring oversight, and incredibly classless when we think about it.
We proceeded to go to the justice committee in order to try to get more information after allegations were made in The Globe and Mail. We were told by the members that we should look past those allegations. They questioned whether there was anything behind the allegations, since they came from anonymous sources.
It is quite interesting that today we are in a situation where those anonymous sources have led to two incredibly high-profile resignations, both from cabinet and from the inner workings of the Prime Minister's Office. Surely somebody is taking these allegations seriously, even if it is Mr. Butts and even if it is the former attorney general.
Why should we have a public inquiry? A public inquiry, first and foremost, accepts evidence and conducts its hearings in a public forum, and focuses on a very specific occurrence. I can think of no other example in my 11 years here where we have needed to get to the bottom of something that is so crucial to the rule of law.
The extent of the media coverage has been enormous. The fact that it has reached into the living rooms and kitchens of Canadians is important because it puts upon us, as members of Parliament, the onus to shed light on the matter, so that we can go home and tell people exactly what has happened and what is going on, and have more to say than “This is a cover-up” and “This is stonewalling”.
Finally and foremost, why should members of Parliament, despite partisan leanings, vote in favour of this? In seven and a half short months we will be going door to door, probably sooner than that if we are doing our jobs correctly, and we will be asking our constituents to once again place their trust in us as their members of Parliament to represent them in the House of Commons. I emphasize the word “trust”.
I have to wonder if, individually, all of us as members of Parliament, especially those who sit on the government side, are not troubled by the secrecy, because our constituents are. Are members not troubled by the smear campaign that was launched from the Prime Minister's Office on the former attorney general? Our constituents are troubled.
Are members not troubled by the Prime Minister's attempt, day after day, of spinning a narrative and dancing so close to the line on waiving privilege that we end up with a 20-minute dissertation on the floor of the House of Commons of what is or is not solicitor-client privilege?
Are members not troubled that there have been two high-profile resignations in no more than 11 days since this matter began? My constituents are troubled.
When Liberal members of Parliament go to the door what will their response be? Is it going to be that we have to trust the Prime Minister and that they believe in the Prime Minister and his team? Is that going to be enough? How will those members respond when they are asked the fundamental question, which I know it is going to be asked because it is being asked now: Why is the former attorney general not allowed to speak? What is the response that those members will give?
I am going to conclude with this. There are 40 special members of the Liberal caucus on the other side, 40 members who have indeed, like myself and many colleagues on this side, taken an oath in order to be a counsel, solicitor or barrister in this country. One of the key tenets of that oath is the phrase, “I shall champion the rule of law”. The onus on those 40 members is, indeed, greater than the onus on the MPs who have not received that incredibly important burden in society of championing the rule of law.
Therefore, I encourage the members of Parliament for Scarborough—Rouge Park, Madawaska—Restigouche, St. Catharines, Scarborough Southwest, Charlottetown, Toronto—Danforth, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, Willowdale, Beaches—East York, Central Nova, West Nova, Regina—Wascana, Calgary Centre, Mount Royal, York South—Weston, Alfred-Pellan, Ahuntsic-Cartierville, Mississauga—Erin Mills, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Sudbury, Louis-Hébert, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Ottawa South, Ottawa Centre, Eglinton—Lawrence, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, Brome—Missisquoi, Steveston—Richmond East, Newmarket—Aurora, Delta, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Brampton Centre, Surrey Centre, Mississauga—Streetsville, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, Parkdale—High Park, St. John's East and Montarville to uphold the oath under which they deservedly became a professional solicitor in this country.
I encourage them to do the right thing, vote in favour of this public inquiry and shine a light on what is possibly a criminal matter, and to do it today.
