Article content continued

This isn’t about a lack of loyalty. On the contrary, I recommended that the government acknowledge what happened in order to move forward. This was an expression of loyalty, not disloyalty — in the same way that Jody Wilson-Raybould attempted to protect the Prime Minister from the obvious short-term and long-term consequences of attempts to interfere with prosecutorial independence — but to no avail.

This also isn’t about political advantage or strategy. It is frankly absurd to suggest that I would leave one of the most senior portfolios in government for personal advancement or merely out of friendship with Jody Wilson-Raybould.

I have also been criticized for not telling my complete story in Parliament because I would be shielded by Parliamentary immunity. Much of the story has now been told by Jody Wilson-Raybould as a result of the additional information she provided to the Justice Committee. Anything else is covered by Cabinet privilege that has not been waived. It would be irresponsible for me to breach Cabinet privilege simply because I could do so without being prosecuted for the breach. Parliamentary privilege is not designed as a licence for breaching your constitutional and ethical obligations.

Throughout these events, I have continued to support Liberal policies and the commitments we made. As a member of Cabinet, I would have been compelled to support in Question Period and in the media the government’s response to the SNC-Lavalin case and speak in support of that response. I could not do this and as a result, I was compelled to resign. I thought there should be scope within the caucus and the party for a range of views on the SNC-Lavalin case including the views I expressed directly to the Prime Minister. Indeed, the need has never been greater for a measured re-evaluation of how the government should respond to this issue. What I have heard from Canadians is that they want to know the truth.