Justice Committee on Feb. 13th, 2019

[Michael Barrett, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The opposition parties put forward a motion to be considered here today and two hours and 15 minutes into the meeting, it's not the motion that we are discussing. As is your prerogative, you recognized a Liberal member of the committee and the motion that member put forward.

As a new but regular member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and with consideration of your comments at the outset about the common ground that members of this committee have traditionally been able to find in furthering the business and the good work of this committee, I would have hoped that with the motion put forward by the Liberal members, at the outset saying that they were looking for some common ground to be built around that, the very reasonable amendment put forward by Mr. Cullen would be given more consideration than just outright refusal, which is essentially what happened. This was a clear cut, right down the middle of the room, as far as support for and against.

However, there still is an opportunity. Though the Liberal members do hold the majority on this committee, they have an opportunity with the motion they have put forward to make an amendment and not to hold the consideration and selection of witnesses in secret next week. Though it may be a convention or tradition that those deliberations are held in camera, there is an opportunity in these exceptional circumstances to avoid the perception that there is something to hide. If they amend their motion to hold those discussions in public, they give themselves the opportunity to not position themselves in a light that it is is pretty clear they have something to hide.

The witnesses put forward are very reasonable and germane to the subject matter, so with a view to the motion put forward by the Liberal members, I suggest that that very simple adjustment ought to be made.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barrett.

The next person is Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I think we must come to a decision and vote on the motion before us. It really speaks to the substance of what the parties opposite and our impartial members on the Liberal side, as well as Canadians, hope to look into, in order to understand the nature of the relationship between the attorney general, the government and the Prime Minister's Office, including cabinet ministers, etc. I think we should go ahead and move to a vote immediately. If I had more faith in the members across the way with respect to their political posturing, we'd be happy to have this discussion in public, but I really fear that they will use their tactics, as they've shown over the past number of days, to make this a very heavy political issue and to impede the truth-finding exercise we are about to embark upon.

I hope we can move to a vote on this motion immediately.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you so much.

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I know this has been the subject of a lot of discussion today. I think we should vote on the main motion. I just want to be clear on a couple of things.

First of all, I respect Mr. Cullen's point on going in camera to discuss a potential legal issue, but on the sub judice principle, we don't have that information at our fingertips right now to make a decision on that. Those are normally things that would be discussed in camera—that would be perfectly normal—along with a timetable to look at other issues this committee may or may not be dealing with. We would always have those discussions in camera, as well as discussions on other witnesses. I think it's important that people understand that we need to hold that meeting to have those discussions about things that are very important for this committee to consider before we embark on this study. Then, of course, any meetings flowing from that will be in public. I don't want to leave the false impression that we're talking about having meetings in camera on this study.

I think that's an important point and I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Next is Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper]

In the three and half years I've had the privilege of serving on this committee, we've had a number of good days. We've gotten a lot of good things done when we've been able to put aside partisan differences and look at what is in the best interests of Canadians, the best interests of the law, but I have to say, this is not one of those days. This is the most disappointing day I've had on this committee. I really did believe...and, Mr. Chair, you said that we just dismissed this committee exercise out of hand with respect to our motion. That's not true. I have said many times publicly, on the record, that I have faith in the members on the Liberal side to put aside partisan differences, to put aside what is in the interests of the PMO and to do what is in the interests of Canadians. Sadly, Mr. Chair, I learned today that on this issue I was wrong.

What we learned today is that Liberal members on this issue, which speaks to corruption at the highest levels of the PMO, are nothing more than agents of the PMO, doing the bidding of the PMO. How do we know that? Very simply, when I along with Ms. Raitt asked a very straightforward question about how these three witnesses—the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General and the Clerk of the Privy Council—appeared on the list of witnesses to call, to the exclusion of individuals such as Gerald Butts, there was a lot of confusion over there. It was pretty clear that Mr. Boissonnault hadn't drafted the motion, but we got the answer that it was apparently the government House leader's office that was involved.

In other words, the government House leader was directing what Liberal MPs on this committee would bring forward. There we have it for the record. It's very clear. It's very plain. This is not a committee that, on the Liberal side, is acting independently and in the interests of Canadians. That's sad.

Let the record also show that when it came time to vote on Mr. Cullen's amendment, Liberal MPs voted against calling Gerald Butts, who met with SNC-Lavalin on multiple occasions, including on the issues related to justice and law enforcement. When given the opportunity to call Mr. Bouchard, who again met with SNC-Lavalin multiple times on justice and law enforcement issues, the Liberal MPs voted no. When it came time to vote on whether to call the most important witness, former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal members voted no.

Mr. Boissonnault, parroting the Prime Minister's lines, cited the issue of solicitor-client privilege. The simple answer is that the Prime Minister can waive that privilege. I would hope that, in the interest of getting to the bottom of this, the Liberal MPs would agree that it's important that the Prime Minister stop the cover-up and unleash the former attorney general.

With that, I would like to propose an amendment to the motion. Mr. Chair, I will read my amendment:

That the committee call on the Prime Minister to immediately waive any purported solicitor-client privilege involving the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I have a point of order, sorry.

Mr. McKinnon.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

We're well past the time that we've allocated for this. This meeting should have ended 15 minutes ago. I'm happy to vote on the main motion.

[Pierre Poilievre]

It's a cover-up.

[Michael Cooper]

It's a cover-up and it's becoming clearer by the day.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I think, number one, Mr. Cooper had the floor. As far as I know he's perfectly allowed to move an amendment while he has the floor, even though I thought we had an agreement beforehand that we were going to have these speakers and to vote on the main motion.

However, absolutely we can have an amendment. We can continue with this list, and then hopefully we can vote on both the amendment and the main motion and actually get through this meeting and come to some conclusion today.

Mr. Cooper, you have the floor.

[Michael Cooper]

Yes. Well, before I was interrupted.... I will again state my amendment:

That the committee call on the Prime Minister to immediately waive any purported solicitor-client privilege involving the former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould, in respect of the SNC-Lavalin matter, so that Ms. Wilson-Raybould can speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Can we have a copy of that, please?

[Michael Cooper]

I just have notes, so—

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

No, I understand. I'm trying to determine if that is still to the motion.

Sorry; once we have it, we'll make that determination.

Yes, Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre]

On a point of order, Chair, the reason this is in order is that one of the witnesses may, of course, be Jody Wilson-Raybould. She is at the centre at this matter. For her to testify in this committee, it would be good for her to have legal certainty that she is allowed to speak freely. This amendment is simply a friendly amendment to what the government has put forward. Not only is it consistent with having hearings; it's also consistent with the intention of the original motion.

So it is in order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Again, I understand the link to the potential testimony of a potential witness before the committee. However, I still need to see how it's formulated and what part of the the motion it proposes to amend, so I will reserve judgment for the moment on whether or not it's receivable.

Mr. Poilievre, were you planning to speak to that issue, or were you planning to speak to—

[Pierre Poilievre]

I can speak to the main motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Okay. If you go ahead and speak to the main one, we won't slow you down with this, and then I'll try to rule at the end of that. I'll give you a chance to go to....

It would be in order, Mr. Cooper, although I shouldn't be telling you what I think would be, if you suggested that at that meeting the subject be introduced. I don't know about adding that at the end of that line. I mean, it's talking about what we're doing at a Tuesday meeting. I appreciate it, but I don't think it's within the context of the motion. I would tentatively—

[An hon. member]

Put it at the beginning.

[Pierre Poilievre]

You're fine.

[Michael Cooper]

Put it before that.

[Pierre Poilievre]

Just vote against it, if that's how you feel.

[Michael Cooper]

If you want to cover it up, you just...yes or no.