Thank you, Mr. Chair, and it will, I assure you.
She said, “These events involved 11 people...from the Prime Minister's Office, the Privy Council Office, and the office of the Minister of Finance. These included in-person conversations, telephone calls, emails and text messages.”
Further on she indicated, “...on September the 19, I spoke to Minister Morneau on this matter when we were in the House. He again stressed the need to save jobs, and I told him that engagements from his office to mine on SNC had to stop, that they were inappropriate.
She said, “They did not stop. On September 20, my chief of staff had phone calls with Mr. Chin and Justin To, both members of the Minister of Finance's office, about DPAs and SNC.”
Those are the relevant quotes, because they obviously reference the Minister of Finance or his office in what Jody Wilson-Raybould and, I think, many Canadians would term as inappropriate efforts to try to advocate on behalf of SNC-Lavalin.
My question—and this is where the relevance comes in—is in relation to Bill C-82. Obviously, if the Minister of Finance and his staff felt somehow compelled to inappropriately lobby and pressure the then-Minister of Justice and Attorney General on behalf of and in trying to do something to benefit SNC-Lavalin in regard to the deferred prosecution agreements, one would have to wonder, would they then be willing to do the same on something such as Bill C-82?
The question would be, do you see anything in Bill C-82 that would potentially be of benefit to a company like SNC-Lavalin?
Also, was there ever any representation from the Minister of Finance or his staff made to you or any other officials in the Department of Finance related to Bill C-82 and with relevance to SNC-Lavalin?