QUESTION PERIOD — Prime Minister’s Office
SNC-Lavalin
April 9, 2019
I’ve been looking forward to asking you a question, sir. Is it “shameless” O’Regan? Is that what you just said?
That would be disrespectful and I’m not disrespectful.
No, I know, but I thought you just said it. You might have had a slip of your tongue, because I did hear that.
My question is for you, sir. As we know, on March 31, the Prime Minister’s lawyer sent a letter to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Andrew Scheer, threatening a lawsuit regarding comments he made about the SNC-Lavalin affair. This letter seems to imply a change of heart in how the Prime Minister has handled this matter thus far. I’m interested in whether the government leader agrees with the Prime Minister’s new-found enthusiasm for an open airing of the facts regarding his government’s attempted interference in a criminal prosecution.
Senator Harder, given the Prime Minister’s willingness to submit to a full examination of the facts under oath, could you tell us if your thoughts have changed with respect to a Senate study on the SNC-Lavalin matter? Do you now support our colleague Senator Plett’s motion?
No, I do not.
That reminds me of yes and no answers.
If the Prime Minister is willing to submit to pretrial discovery in relation to a lawsuit he has threatened to pursue, then he must have no objection to the details of this matter being publicly examined before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
Senator Harder, if the Prime Minister is apparently now willing to have this matter publicly aired, then why aren’t you?
Again, honourable senator, let me repeat: The matter with respect to the two former ministers, particularly the former Minister of Justice and the Attorney General, have been well-aired in the committee of the other place.
As I have said now several times, the Ethics Commissioner in the other place has been seized of the matter and is, under his authority, taking all steps necessary to make the investigation that has been referenced.
The honourable senator will also know that the Prime Minister has engaged, as I have said several times now, the former Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney General with respect to providing advice by June 30 with respect to the relationships between the ministers and the Attorney General and their respective offices.
Honourable senators, for the record, I would also quote from the former Attorney General, in her lengthy written brief and the audio recording to the committee at page 19 of that brief. Former Minister Wilson-Raybould states:
For my part, I do not believe I have anything further to offer a formal process regarding this specific matter . . . .
In an interview on “Power Play” aired last Thursday, former Minister Philpott stated:
. . . I think there’s enough information on the public record for Canadians to see what happened and judge for themselves.
In another interview with Maclean’s published last Thursday, Dr. Philpott was asked:
Do you still feel there’s more that Canadians should know?
Dr. Philpott answered:
. . . in reference to my previous comments, since that time obviously more information has become available. Probably the most important piece is the 43-page document that was tabled by the former attorney general. . . .
Those were important pieces to put out there. Is there more to say? There are other pieces of information, parts of the story that I could add to, based on conversations that I had. At this point I’m not inclined to feel that there’s benefit in making a big issue of that, because I think there’s enough information out there now for Canadians to judge what took place.
