Justice Committee on Feb. 13th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Welcome, everyone, to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It is wonderful to see the interest in our committee.

I very much appreciate everyone's presence here today.

This is actually a wonderful lesson on the House of Commons, because a lot of people watch question period and they only see the interaction of parties at question period where there is a lot of gamesmanship, and this committee actually does really good work. We worked together on a study on the court challenges program, which helped bring back the court challenges program. We worked together on a legal aid study. We worked together on a study to help Canadian jurors, which led to the private member's bill of my colleague Mr. Cooper, which will be coming to committee in another week. It will make it easier for jurors to disclose information to psychotherapists and analysts about their jury deliberation experience.

Where we haven't agreed on issues, we've done so with great courtesy.

I hope this will continue today. We welcome several new people. Everyone is welcome.

Definitely this is a time when Canadians are watching us, and they are expecting to see a committee that functions very well.

The issue that brought us here today is that my opposition colleagues have asked for a special meeting to be held, which we happily have convened, to discuss a very serious issue before Canadians. Canadians are rightly concerned right now about the issues related to the former attorney general. Definitely on our side as well, we want to make sure that Canadians understand what has occurred.

We were a little disappointed that the opposition went ahead and drafted a motion without consulting us or working with us, but I get it. That's the way politics works.

We're hoping to find a consensual way to bring the subject to Canadians, and I'd like to ask my colleague Mr. Boissonnault to perhaps put forward something that I think will draw the consensus of everyone.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's nice to see so many people here today taking an interest in Canada's justice system.

I think it is clear that there is concern among Canadians in terms of how we got to where we are today. I also think it is clear that the Prime Minister has been very clear in his interactions. I think the justice committee has the responsibility to reassure Canadians that our justice system is not only intact but also robust, that our government follows the rules, and that we take pride in doing so.

I think there is some concern on our side about the sub judice rule. We as the justice committee have to be very careful to make sure that anything we would undertake here as a committee would not affect any court proceedings related to SNC-Lavalin or any other parties that may be subject to court proceedings in the future.

This motion today is designed to address the confidence of Canadians, to reassure them, and to shine a light on what remediation agreements are, what the Shawcross doctrine is, and what the discussions were between the office of the attorney general and government colleagues. I believe, and my colleagues believe at this point, that this is an appropriate motion at this time.

Copies of the motion in both English and French should have been distributed. If not, we will make sure that is done right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Do we have the French version yet?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Yes, it's right here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Could you read it into the record?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I'll read the motion now, Mr. Chair.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Chair, if I may, just while they are being distributed—

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Absolutely, Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you for your introduction.

Just on this small point, you raised some concern that the motion brought by us and the Conservatives was brought without consultation. I think the same concern could be brought with regard to the motion that we're about to read now. If we're being consistent in terms of what we're doing here today, I would just like to understand how you imagine going through this, because I believe—and I'll refer through you to the clerk—according to the order of precedence in which the motions were submitted, the committee is obligated to deal with the motion for which notice was given first. We only got this motion seconds ago as Mr. Boissonnault has introduced it, with no time for us to reference it.

We have a motion that has been tabled by the opposition and that is also due consideration and shouldn't be replaced.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Cullen, my understanding is that whoever is recognized first can put forward the motion and that the request was to have a meeting, which we have convened. The goal here was not to be in any way non-consensual. If we get to talking about the motion, the goal was to actually be consensual and try to work together to come up with the appropriate timetable and witness list and everything else.

The motion is appropriately put forward.

Has the French version been distributed?

[An hon. member]

This one is in French.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

You don't have an English copy?

I'm sorry.

I'd like to ask Mr. Boissonnault, for the moment, to read it into the record, and then we'll be happy to entertain any questions at all, either on procedure or on the substance of the motion, and debate. Then, of course, as the opposition knows, if this motion is amended or refused, that other motion can be put forward, a hundred per cent. It's not out of order in any way.

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I just want to be put on the speakers list for when Mr. Boissonnault reads the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Of course. I have four people now. We will get everybody on the speakers list. I have Mr. Cullen, Mr. Fraser, Ms. Raitt and Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Boissonnault still has the floor to deliver the motion.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is:

That the Justice and Human Rights committee hold meetings to examine remediation agreements, the Shawcross Doctrine and the discussions between the Office of the Attorney General and Government colleagues, and that witnesses list include, but not be limited to:

Minister of Justice and Attorney General David Lametti;

Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General Nathalie Drouin;

Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick; and

that the Committee meet in camera on Tuesday, February 19, 2019, at a time set by the Chair to discuss obtaining a legal opinion on the sub judice rule, potential additional witnesses and a timeline for the meetings.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you, Mr. Boissonnault.

Mr. Cullen, you have the floor.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to you as well, Mr. Boissonnault.

In small passing, I note the absence of Ms. Wilson-Raybould on your witness list. That clearly is somebody Canadians would be very keen to hear from. As she has been obviously a central figure to this, her omission on your list is more than interesting to me. I'm comparing the two motions, because I think that's fair to do. This is your response, I essentially assume, to what the Conservatives put forward. There are a number of key people who may be absent.

Mr. Chair, if I may, as I've expressed to you, I found the current Attorney General's comments this past weekend in the public, in the media.... Without having spoken to Ms. Wilson-Raybould, as he admitted, or to anybody, really, about this, only hearing the Prime Minister's public comments, he has decided that there was nothing to investigate here. That's troubling for me. As Canada's chief prosecutor, his remarkable lack of curiosity over a potential obstruction of justice occurring in the Office of the Prime Minister, for him to essentially pass judgment.... With great respect to my Liberal colleagues on this committee, I could not help but see how his comments were an attempt not to influence what happened at this committee. Suggesting that he saw no grounds for investigation before we had even met and had our conversation I found to be incredibly unhelpful and inappropriate.

With regard to what we are talking about, I hope all my colleagues would agree that the matter at hand here goes to the very heart of our democracy—how the halls of power work and how they interact, if they do and when they do, with the independent judiciary that we pride ourselves on as Canadians. I think this case, Vice-Admiral Norman's case, and others have started to call into question the commitment from this government to the independence of that judiciary.

To Mr. Boissonnault's motion and his argument, in the preamble he suggested—or perhaps that was you, Chair—that the public comments from the Prime Minister were solid and verifiable. My trouble with this is that the central proof that the Prime Minister of Canada used as to why there was nothing to see here evaporated within 24 hours. When asked directly by a member of the media if any undue influence was put on Ms. Wilson-Raybould, his comment was that her continued presence in cabinet speaks for itself. That was the proof offered up. I would assume, then, that the opposite is also true, that her decision to resign from cabinet is also telling as to what is occurring in front of us.

I will try to end here, Mr. Chair. All I will say is that I'm not satisfied with the motion as it's written. I think there may be a combination, perhaps. I think an understanding of sub judice rules...that other committees have dealt with before, by the way, when there's been something before the court that the committee wants to investigate: How do we make sure we don't negatively affect the court process? I think that's important. I think understanding solicitor-client privilege is also important. But I am not interested, and I doubt Mr. Rankin—for whom I'm doing a poor job filling in today—would be interested, in some seven-month wandering expedition into the deep bowels of Canadian law and jurisprudence to understand minutiae. That wouldn't be helpful to us. We need to get to the substance of the matter, because that's what Canadians expect of us. I wholly concur on the quality of the work done by this committee and its collegiality.

I will end with this. With all due respect to my Conservative colleagues, I thought the use of social media directed at my Liberal colleagues across the way, with phone numbers and emails, was inappropriate. I understand there has been a fair amount of hate expressed toward some of my Liberal friends. If there is any attempt to do right by Canadians here, we need to rise as best we can above the partisan interests that each of us brings to the table, to acknowledge them and yet stand above them.

What we see here, the case that we have in front of us, is one of the most troubling I've seen in my years of politics. The allegations in The Globe and Mail were serious and the fallout that has occurred since then has only increased my worry. I think I reflect the worry of many Canadians, wondering what exactly is happening and why this has been allowed to happen.

I think this motion, if it were to be considered, would need amendment. Perhaps there's a combination between the two that committee members would find acceptable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cullen.

The motion on the table is what's being debated.

In response to your question about the witnesses, we've included the list of people who we know will attend, who are prepared to attend. Nobody has spoken to Ms. Wilson-Raybould in any way.

I'm monopolizing the time, but we tried to say on Tuesday that we will all get together and talk about the timetable and witnesses. I'm in entire agreement with Mr. Cullen that there's absolutely no need to have multiple meetings to establish the legal framework, but I think it would be helpful to have one meeting, at least, to understand the Shawcross doctrine from people who really understand it very well.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Just to confirm what you said, Chair, the three witnesses you have put forward—the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General, and the current Minister of Justice and Attorney General—have all agreed, so far, to appear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

This is my understanding at this time.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cullen.

I was wrong before when I said Mr. Fraser and Ms. Raitt. I saw Ms. Raitt first, and she should be recognized anyway because I haven't recognized the opposition yet.

Ms. Raitt.

[Lisa Raitt, Milton, CPC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the comments of Mr. Cullen, and of course I appreciate the comments of Mr. Boissonnault.

I had prepared comments for today, which I will read, but before that, Mr. Chair, I do want to make a few points.

First of all, in your preamble opening the meeting today, you indicated that Canadians are rightly concerned, and I agree, and that we do want to make sure that Canadians understand. But you've also said in the past, Mr. Chair, that you believe the Prime Minister, and you believe that you don't need to speak to the Prime Minister personally—because I don't believe you have—in order to judge whether or not what the Prime Minister says is an accurate description of what exactly is happening.

What is happening is the contention that allegations have been made that the Prime Minister's Office has politically interfered with the office of the attorney general. That is why we're here today.

Mr. Boissonnault, in opening up today, said that there is a clear concern among Canadians, and I agree. Then he went on to say that the Prime Minister has been clear, and I fundamentally disagree with that. The Prime Minister has not been clear. That is exactly why we're sitting here today.

The justice committee does have a responsibility, but it's to get to the bottom of what's going on, not to do what Mr. Boissonnault said, which is to assure Canadians that what the government is doing is okay. That is not our job here. Our job is to ask tough questions of witnesses to determine whether or not there has been some kind of wrongdoing, and that's exactly the spirit in which we approach this meeting today.

I agree that we need to shine a light, as Mr. Boissonnault said. I agree that we don't want to impact court proceedings, but I don't see how having a conversation about the interior workings of the government vis-à-vis the attorney general's office is going to have an impact, because it's all about political interference and whether or not there was inappropriate political interference put on the attorney general.

I also appreciate, Mr. Chair, that you fully understood and knew that we were bringing the motion together today. You'd have to live under a rock not to know that we were going to be doing that. I also know, because you said it today, that you recognized Mr. Boissonnault first. It is in your purview, but I think it's important to understand that despite the fact you knew we were coming forth with the motion, you decided to recognize the Liberal member before, in order to make sure that we were not going to be able to put forward our motion. That has been noted by me. As I said before, Mr. Chair, having read your comments to the press in the past number of days, I would have to question whether or not you have bias on the issue since you have already said that you believe the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's office in this matter. That's what we're here to get to the bottom of.

With that, I would like to outline, of course, that this is a very important issue and that media reports have revealed very troubling allegations with respect to possible interference by the Prime Minister's Office in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. I further believe that instead of fulfilling his duty to provide clarity to Canadians and to live up to his lofty campaign rhetoric around openness and transparency, the Prime Minister has obfuscated and he has dodged.

First his story was that the media report was false. Then when the position became untenable, his story changed. He admitted that while there were conversations among the senior staff and the PMO and the attorney general, there was no direction given. But then, through anonymous sources in media reports, the smear campaign began. The story became about how Jody Wilson-Raybould was difficult to get along with and only in it for herself.

I can tell you that as a female leader in this country, from business and politics, I think that standard gendered criticism of female leaders is absolutely unacceptable. I'm so disappointed that neither the Prime Minister nor anybody from his office came out to say that these were wrong and that nobody should be making these comments.

I take Mr. Cullen's point of view that we shouldn't have gone and made the social media comments that we did. But where is anybody on this side saying that those comments about Jody Wilson-Raybould, which came from within the PMO, are acceptable in this land? We know they're not acceptable. We know they shouldn't have been said, and we know what they were meant to say.

Then it changed further to become about the meetings the Prime Minister had last fall, to tell the attorney general that the decisions related to the Public Prosecution Service at the time were hers alone. The Prime Minister even went so far as to say that Jody Wilson-Raybould's presence in the cabinet should actually speak for itself.

Then yesterday it all changed again when Jody Wilson-Raybould resigned from cabinet. In his press conference last night, the Prime Minister changed his story again, essentially this time accusing Jody Wilson-Raybould of turning a blind eye to misconduct in his own office.

There's been an extraordinary evolution of the Prime Minister's story, but what it does is it shows Canadians that this is not a government under control. It shows Canadians that this is a government in total chaos, and it raises critical questions of ethics and conduct from the highest-ranking staff in his office.

What we know, thanks to the reports from The Globe and Mail, is that pressure was applied to the attorney general to overrule the director of public prosecutions and to advocate for a deferred prosecution agreement for SNC-Lavalin.

What form did this pressure take? We need to know when and how. Did Katie Telford speak to Jody Wilson-Raybould about SNC-Lavalin? We need to know when and how often Gerald Butts spoke to Jody Wilson-Raybould about SNC-Lavalin. We need to know when and how often Mathieu Bouchard spoke to Jody Wilson-Raybould about SNC-Lavalin. We do know that he met with SNC-Lavalin a frequent number of times. We need to know when and how often Elder Marques spoke to Jody Wilson-Raybould about SNC-Lavalin. We need to know when and how often the Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, spoke to Jody Wilson-Raybould about SNC-Lavalin.

Further, we have learned from court proceedings that there has been a high degree of co-operation between the Privy Council Office and the Public Prosecution Service in the matter of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. The judge even said in open court, “So much for the independence of the PPSC”. That is a grave statement by someone holding the esteemed position of judge in this country. That is something parliamentarians should take note of and do absolutely everything we can to get to the bottom of.

Canadians deserve to hear from the director of public prosecutions as to what her standard practices are. How often has she spoken with PCO about ongoing matters, including SNC-Lavalin, and did PCO act to launder the communications from the PMO? Did the director of public prosecutions speak to the PMO directly, and if so, when and with whom?

Canadians also deserve to hear from Jessica Prince. Ms. Prince is an accomplished attorney who has been serving as the chief of staff to Minister Wilson-Raybould, as she then was.

As a former minister, I know there is frequent and significant contact between what's known as the centre, in other words the PMO and PCO, and the minister's chief of staff. Ms. Prince can tell us if anyone pressured her into taking any action or into relaying directions for action to the minister and, if such pressure was applied, who did it, when did it happen and what form did it take.

To really get to the crux of the matter, we need to hear from former minister Jody Wilson-Raybould herself so she can provide clarity on this matter, as the primary person involved.

I would also call on Prime Minister Trudeau to waive any notion of solicitor-client privilege so that there can be full transparency and accountability.

Mr. Chair, you said in the last few days that you're concerned about the partisanship of the committee and that you were not going to support a motion because it was too partisan, but the reality is that the truth is not a partisan issue. Canadians do expect the truth, and we have the power here to make sure that they get it. I sincerely hope all members of the committee will recognize that.

I'm not satisfied with the motion either, as Mr. Cullen has said, but I look forward to hearing from the other members as to what they have to say.

I thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you, Ms. Raitt.

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, everyone.

Obviously, I take exception to some of the things that have been outlined already, but I think we are here today to try to move forward on this matter.

The motion advanced by Mr. Boissonnault, I believe, is a reasonable motion and I will be supporting it. It is designed to reassure Canadians and show how Parliament can work and do good work at this committee, which we have shown time and time again on very important issues for Canadians.

The decorum with which we conduct ourselves at committees, such as this justice committee, will be noticed by Canadians. I think we can reflect the best of ourselves if we work together in a way that seeks to reassure Canadians and find out what has occurred in this situation.

The motion submitted by Mr. Boissonnault mentions that there is potentially an issue regarding the sub judice rule, and it is incumbent on our committee, as Mr. Cullen said, to examine, possibly, that issue to ensure there is fairness on a matter currently before the courts. That is an important feature of this motion.

I also believe that examining the Shawcross doctrine, which actually lays out the standard by which an attorney general can interact with cabinet colleagues and others, is an important way to show Canadians what that standard is and to reassure them that there are principles on this and that discussions surrounding the former attorney general, with matters currently being prosecuted, are adequate and okay. We need to understand what that doctrine says so that Canadians can be reassured about what the proper standard is.

Those are my submissions, Mr. Chair. I thank you very much for convening the meeting. I agree with Mr. Boissonnault and will be supporting his motion unamended.

Thank you.