I thank the honourable senator for her question. It’s clear that in the view of the Prime Minister and his government, this issue was an important issue, as it was the first time the new DPA was potentially involved, one that the government needs to proceed with with caution and appropriate regard for the law. That was and remains the objective of the Prime Minister.

The former Minister of Justice and Attorney General in her four and a half hours of committee hearing confirmed that no direction had been received by her from the Prime Minister and confirmed that no laws were broken.

What we have is a breakdown of trust, if I can put it that way, between certain individuals in the Prime Minister’s Office and the former minister. That has been acknowledged by all concerned.

What, again, is important for us all is to understand that the rule of law in Canada remains strong and that there has been no interference that is inappropriate or no direction given on this matter.

Again, I thank the honourable senator for her question. As I have indicated in response to other questions, this is a matter, as the honourable senator knows, that is before the Senate for debate. My views have been expressed and are clear. I look forward to others engaging in the process.

Honourable colleagues, I quote:

There’s much more to the story that needs to be told.

. . . we . . . owe it to Canadians . . . to ensure that they have the truth.

Honourable colleagues, those are the words of a former senior cabinet minister in the Trudeau government, Dr. Jane Philpott. She’s clearly calling for transparency and accountability. She’s clearly asking the Parliament of Canada to have the truth rain down on this place.

Instead of the Prime Minister allowing the other place and this place to do their jobs, he chooses to hire a former deputy prime minister to come into his office and educate him on the important principle of the separation of power between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, and also to explain to him the role of the Attorney General and the Justice Minister of Canada.

At least there are two former cabinet ministers in his government who understood this important principle. There have been 23 prime ministers in this country over 150 years, and not a single one has attempted to transgress that important principle.

Why does this Prime Minister have such difficulty understanding the importance of separation between the executive and the judiciary and respect that?

If the question is the question as posed, the Prime Minister, of course, deeply understands the important relationship that is involved in the exercising of responsibilities by the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

He has respected that in terms of how his government, in proceeding with the newly created deferred prosecution agreement provisions, did so with caution and in an informed fashion.

That is the issue on which he is seeking additional advice from the former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice and Attorney General, because that is a unique and newly informed provision in the Canadian practice and one that this government wants to ensure is proceeded with cautiously and appropriately.

Government leader, clearly this Prime Minister doesn’t understand the principle because he has lost two senior former cabinet ministers who are both saying, as of today, there’s a lot more to the story than we have already heard. As Parliament, we owe it to Canadians to find out exactly what that story is and allow for Canadians to come to a determination if laws have been broken or not, and the police authorities will come to that determination.

Clearly the Prime Minister is struggling with this important principle because if he hadn’t been struggling with it, he wouldn’t need to hire an outside adviser like Anne McLellan to come in and explain it for him.

Wouldn’t it have been a lot easier for this Prime Minister to simply count upon the sage advice of Liberals who have experience in government and in Parliament, some of those non-merit appointed Liberals who are sitting in the Senate that he threw out of his national governing caucus three years ago, like Senator Mercer, Senator Downe, Senator Joyal and Senator Dawson? Couldn’t this Prime Minister have benefited from some of their experience and not put the country in the political and judicial crisis we’re in today?

It is no laughing matter. Trudeau-appointed senators might be laughing, but it is no laughing matter.

I’m trying to figure out what the question is, but let me simply say —

The question is clear.

It’s no wonder you’re backing up the Prime Minister.

Let me say that the Prime Minister, as I’ve said several times now, has sought the advice of the former Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney General on a very specific set of questions.

In the preamble of the question, there was reference to laws having been broken. The former Attorney General and Minister of Justice in her four and a half hours of testimony made clear that in her view — and she was the Minister of Justice and the person most affected in this — there were no laws broken. To suggest that there were or to suggest the police are investigating is to try to invent and stoke a fire.

She wants to complete her testimony.