Honourable senators, I think this has been moved already.

Senator Plett?

First of all, I said, “honourable colleagues.” I don’t think that in any way indicated what I was going to or not going to do. I’m not sure where the point of order came from. I didn’t even have an opportunity to say anything other than “honourable colleagues.” Is that your point of order?

Your Honour, I plan on speaking to this. I think some other colleagues plan on speaking to this. At the end of our speech, we plan on denying adjournment on this. I’m not sure what the point of order is going to be.

Senator Plett, Senator Ringuette had effectively begun a speech and the adjournment was in her name to carry on for the balance of her time. Unless there’s leave given to adjourn in her name, at the end of it, she loses the opportunity to speak.

You have the right to speak. Will you give leave to Senator Ringuette to have the balance of her time? Senator Plett?

I’m not sure I understood what you said because, as I said earlier, I have a bit of a hearing issue and again the microphone was not on properly. I’m not sure what I’m supposed to do.

It’s my motion. I want to speak on the motion. We want the question to be called on the motion today. I believe we have a right to call a question on a motion at any time we want. I am quite prepared to say when I am done. I will sit down and Senator Ringuette can adjourn again and we will possibly at that time deny adjournment. If that is proper procedure, then I am willing to do that.

I’m not sure whether Senator Ringuette wanted me to speak on Good Friday or what day in the last two weeks when we were on break I was supposed to speak. I think for her to talk about a month when two weeks of that month were break weeks is quite rich.

Speaker, I am at your mercy. You have to tell me what I can do. I’m not going to ask Senator Ringuette to tell me what I can do. I think you need to tell me. I want to speak. It’s my motion. I believe I’ve moved the motion. Senator Ringuette has adjourned it. She can continue to try to have adjournment when I’m done, but today we want to call the question on this issue.

Senator Plett, you certainly have the right to speak, and at the conclusion of your speech, Senator Ringuette has the right to request leave to have it adjourned in her name.

Speaker, indeed you are right, but we also have the right to call question right now, and we call question.

I recognized Senator Plett.

Honourable senators, I had recognized Senator Plett to speak.

Their leadership, as I understand it, said they could ask for the question.

I have recognized Senator Plett to speak, after which I will give the floor to Senator Ringuette to speak.

If I could just clarify, Madam Speaker. From what I understand, you have given me the right to speak. Senator Ringuette can then either speak or try to adjourn, and any other senator who wishes to speak will also be able to speak today. Is that correct?

Senator Plett, you have the right to speak and then Senator Ringuette can ask for leave to speak after you.

Thank you. Let me start over.

Senators, I rise today to speak on the motion that is before us concerning that the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs be authorized to examine and report on the serious and disturbing allegations that persons in the Office of the Prime Minister attempted to exert pressure on the former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, P.C., M.P., and to interfere with her independence, thereby potentially undermining the integrity of the administration of justice.

Senators, I believe this motion is probably the most important matter that has come before this chamber during the present Parliament. In fact, it is possible that this is one of the most important motions that have ever been considered by the Senate in its entire history.

Now, that is a bold statement, but I encourage you to put your politics aside for a moment, those people who believe everything we do here is political, and consider what has transpired that brought this motion to the floor of the Senate.

Two ministers of the government resigned on a fundamental matter of principle. Simultaneously, they levelled the most serious allegations against their own government for having inappropriately interfered in the administration of justice. This, colleagues, is unprecedented.

I realize that some time has transpired since these events were fresh in the media and in our minds. But I urge you to not mistakenly allow this to diminish the significance of what has happened and remains unresolved.

When she appeared before the House of Commons Justice Committee, the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould clearly stated:

 . . . I experienced a consistent and sustained effort by many people within the government to seek to politically interfere in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion . . .

Ms. Wilson-Raybould testified that the interference went on for several months with the Prime Minister’s former principal secretary allegedly telling her in December 2018:

. . . there is no solution here that doesn’t involve some interference.

When the Clerk of the Privy Council continued the pressure in a subsequent conversation, the former Attorney General has testified that she emphatically told him:

. . . we are treading on dangerous ground here. I also issued a stern warning because, as the Attorney General, I cannot act in this manner and the prosecution cannot act in a manner that is not objective, that isn’t independent.

In her conversation with the Clerk, she told him:

This is like breaching a constitutional principle of prosecutorial independence.

It is impossible to exaggerate how significant this is. All senators need to consider the testimony of the former Attorney General very carefully.

We have never had a former Attorney General or, indeed, a former minister, level these types of allegations against their own government. Never.

Now, as you know, since that testimony was given, we have had a second minister of the government resign from cabinet, the Honourable Jane Philpott. Since resigning, Ms. Philpott has stated:

I resigned because I could not maintain solidarity with cabinet on the specific issue of the management of the SNC‑Lavalin issue. I felt that there was evidence of an attempt to politically interfere with the justice system in its work on the criminal trial that has been described by some as the most important and serious prosecution of corporate corruption in modern Canadian history.

This is from Ms. Philpott — not me. Ms. Philpott, the former cabinet minister — she also stated:

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

Senators, I submit that, based on this testimony alone, it is imperative that the Senate pass the motion before us. I do not see how we can take any other option and remain credible as a legislative body.

We have heard some senators opposite openly state that members on this side of the house are pursuing this matter or matters before us on Bill C-71 for partisan reasons. The reality is that we are simply responding to the allegations that have been made by former senior ministers in the current government.

Would these same senators allege that Ms. Wilson-Raybould and Ms. Philpott are being partisan in making the allegations that they have made? The fact is there is only one organization in Canada opposing a full inquiry into this matter and that organization, honourable senators, is the Liberal Party of Canada.

If senators opposite vote against the motion that is before us, I submit they will be the ones in this chamber who are demonstrating blatant partisanship, partisanship on behalf of the current government.

Allow me to quote from an editorial in a Canadian newspaper:

Liberals on the House of Commons justice committee are doing Canadians, and their own government, no favours by failing to clear the way for Jody Wilson-Raybould to tell her full story.

She wants to speak out and there’s no doubt that she should be heard. Trying to prevent that, or even just delaying it in the hope that everyone will lose interest, is both wrong and self-defeating.

That editorial, honourable senators, is from the Toronto Star. I think you’d have to agree with me that the Toronto Star is not exactly a conservative newspaper. This is an issue which concerns Canadians from coast to coast to coast, regardless of partisan stripe. Consider this quote:

[We are] . . . concerned by recent allegations of interference in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin that are subject to proceedings in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The Canadian engineering and construction group is the subject of an ongoing prosecution into allegations of the bribery of Libyan officials to obtain a Can$ 58-million contract to restore a water pipeline.

As a Party to the Anti-Bribery Convention, Canada is fully committed to complying with the Convention, which requires prosecutorial independence in foreign bribery cases pursuant to Article 5.

Who said that? It’s from a press release by the OECD Working Group on Bribery. Incidentally, in that same press release, the OECD Working Group initially applauded the government for having referred the matter to the House of Commons Justice Committee for investigation.

The problem is that, within days of that statement by the OECD, the government shut down the investigation by the Justice Committee, just as it has now also shut down a similar attempt at an investigation by the House of Commons Ethics Committee.

I can only hope that senators opposite will not follow the Liberal Party’s lead and shut down an investigation by this house. Until now, Canada has had a very good international reputation regarding the rule of law and the administration of justice.

However, the actions that the government has taken to stifle a full inquiry into this affair have not enhanced its reputation. In fact, it has done exactly the opposite.

Senators, some in this chamber would argue that investigating this matter is the responsibility of the other house, not this one. I disagree. In fact, history disagrees with this assertion.

In 1961, the Diefenbaker government introduced a bill to remove James Coyne, who happens to be the father of Andrew Coyne, as the Governor of the Bank of Canada. The government then used its majority in the House of Commons to refuse to let Mr. Coyne appear before a house committee to defend himself, as the bill to fire him was rammed through the house.

When the bill came to the Senate, the Banking Committee invited him to appear. He did so and gave his side of the story. After listening to James Coyne’s testimony, the Senate Banking Committee sided with him. In its report, they recommended that the bill to remove him as governor not be proceeded with. The day that report exonerating him came out, James Coyne resigned. The bill became moot.

This incident became known as “the Coyne Affair.” It is a perfect example of the Senate providing a forum for a very senior government official to give his side of the story when the government manipulated its majority in the House of Commons in an attempt to silence him. This is a powerful precedent which must not be ignored or diminished. It directly relates to the situation we find before us today in this motion.

Senators, this is a watershed moment for this chamber. Either senators step up to support the motion we have before us or this chamber is silenced.

I have heard Senator Harder state in the past that one of the key roles of the Senate is to act as a safety valve to protect Canadians against the tyranny of the majority. Is that simply rhetoric or does it actually mean something? We will find out shortly when senators finally vote on the motion that we have before us. I hope all senators will do the right thing and support this motion.

Will the honourable senator accept a question? Thank you. Will you instead accept the motion introduced by Senator Pratte which is fulfilling the same purpose but in a different context, instead of sending it to the Justice Committee? And if not, why?

Honourable senators, Senator Pratte made a motion after I made mine, so if they are that similar, maybe Senator Pratte should not have made his motion and should have accepted mine. I guess I can throw that back.

I don’t believe they are similar motions. Senator Pratte is making a motion to create some form of independent committee. I’m not asking that we create a committee. We have a committee. We have the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee that is quite capable of doing this work. I see no reason why we need to create another committee. I guess they are not, in my opinion, and with all due respect, Senator Dalphond, the same motion at all.

Yes, but the main difference between these two motions is that first the Legal Affairs Committee has to study Bill C-75 and then we have to study Bill C-78 and then we have to study Bill C-337, and you want us to embark on this inquiry at the same moment. What has been proposed by Senator Pratte is a group that is made up mostly of independents who would be looking at the matter.

In terms of efficiency and greater independence, what’s the problem? I think his proposal is much superior to your proposal.

Senator Dalphond, by saying one proposal is superior to the other, you are saying they are two entirely different proposals, so I guess you and I don’t agree. I think my proposal is superior to Senator Pratte’s motion, and of course, we will have the opportunity to vote on mine, which I sincerely hope passes. If it doesn’t, then I’m sure we will have the opportunity to vote on Senator Pratte’s motion.

But you are asking us to support creating another body that you yourself say is going to be made up mostly of independents, which of course is your group, so you’re already suggesting let’s make up a group of “us” so that we can study what “us” did wrong. I don’t accept that as the proper committee, so that is why I’m going to continue to ask that we support this motion, and of course, we have the right, and hopefully we will not do it in any political manner. We will do it in a non-partisan manner. We will see the light and have the epiphany that we need to have and support this motion.

I’m going to recognize Senator Ringuette first.

Senator Ringuette, before you start, perhaps I should clarify something. The Scroll version of the Order Paper shows that Senator Ringuette has been starred on her adjournment, which means that in order for her to adjourn a second time, she would need leave. In this case, because the chair has already recognized Senator Plett to speak, and because Senator Ringuette is starred, she will also need leave to enter debate.

I should say, honourable senators, that normally when somebody adjourns a debate, if another senator wishes to speak, they will consult that senator and some agreement is usually reached. However, that was not done in this case, so Senator Plett was recognized and he spoke. In order for Senator Ringuette to speak now, she will need the leave of the Senate. I would caution, honourable senators, it would be courteous to allow a senator in whose name an item was adjourned the opportunity to speak.

Senator Ringuette, are you seeking leave?

The spirit of cooperation.