Evidence of meeting #129 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Again, I think there will be ample opportunity to introduce that motion at subsequent meetings outside of its being an amendment to this motion. I think it's extraneous to this motion. That's the clerk's belief, and mine, so I'm going to rule it out of order.
However—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Mr. Poilievre, I'm making a ruling, so please let me make the ruling.
I will allow you to introduce that as a separate motion at the earliest possible moment. Once we finish dealing with this motion, I will be prepared to let you raise that as a separate motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I have no problem with that as long as we limit the time frame; yes, absolutely. I think that's the fairest thing. I have no problem that we discuss it, but I would rather deal with this motion and then bring yours forward as a separate motion.
Mr. Poilievre.
Carleton, CPC
Thank you very much.
Listen, I know that the government members on this committee would like to cover this matter up as inconspicuously as possible. That's why, of course, they're asking for the discussions on the future study to happen in a secret meeting. I have heard them. They're heckling and so are their supporters in the gallery whenever we point out that fact, but the reality is that the principal player at the heart of this matter is Ms. Jody Wilson-Raybould. She is the former attorney general. She has resigned to preserve her integrity after a series of highly suspect activities that we now know occurred. Those activities, of course, were 14 meetings between SNC-Lavalin and the PMO, meetings between high-level PMO officials and Ms. Raybould, including discussions involving the Prime Minister himself, all regarding the possibility of a special deal for a large accused corporate criminal. She has, in a highly unusual move, resigned from cabinet and said that one of the reasons she believed she was originally moved from her position was that she spoke truth to power.
The only point of even holding these discussion is so that we can hear from her, and yet the Prime Minister is silencing her. He's using his legal authority to prevent her from speaking because he's afraid of what she has to say. What Conservatives are asking, what Canadians are asking, is to let her speak. Now, the Prime Minister is the client. The client can waive solicitor-client privilege. I don't even know why this is a matter of controversy for members across the way. If they wanted the truth to come out, then they would be willing without hesitation to support a call for the Prime Minister to do that. I conclude my remarks with a motion:
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.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We are currently dealing with another motion, so you can't move a motion at the same time we're debating an existing motion. I already ruled that it would have been out of order as an amendment but that I will entertain it as a new motion following the conclusion of the discussion on this motion.
Carleton, CPC
I believe that with unanimous consent we could allow it to go ahead.
Carleton, CPC
Note that members of the Liberal side refuse to provide unanimous consent for this motion to go ahead.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
As a normal matter, of course, yes.
We are now with Mr. Cullen.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I like the introduction, Chair. That was very enthusiastic.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I buy my kids those connect-the-dot books where you follow one number to the next. Anybody who has ever done those before knows that you flip the page and you can clearly see what the thing is, but little kids get the enjoyment of actually connecting all the dots and then realizing at the end what the picture is. It does baffle me that my Liberal colleagues have seen the events of the last six days and say clearly there is nothing untoward here, when every Canadian, many former attorneys general, and many law experts have told us that obstruction charges are brought with less evidence than what we've already seen in this, because the gravity of what we're talking about is so severe.
I appreciate my friends talking about their independence, talking about the need to reassure Canadians that everything is fine. The best way to do that would be in the most transparent manner possible. We clearly know that Ms. Wilson-Raybould should be invited to this committee to tell us her perspective, given the limitations that the Prime Minister's privilege puts upon her ability to speak, and the Liberals just voted against it.
Don't keep saying that you didn't when you just did.
You're entitled to all your own opinions but not your own facts. The facts of the matter are clear. We just offered to invite Ms. Wilson-Raybould to the committee and now we're back to this motion where the current Attorney General has already publicly said that he doesn't believe there's any evidence to allow an investigation, and has also said that he hasn't spoken to Ms. Wilson-Raybould at all or to anybody else who is involved in the allegations that have existed in the newspaper. This is, as one pundit has said, a “Bird Box” investigation. You're looking without looking by intention. Let's not place a blindfold on the committee and then say we're doing the good work of the public. Let's not put these limitations down and refuse the principal actors in this play and suggest that we're somehow doing our best due diligence. That's just not true. You can justify it however you want and pacify yourselves, but that's clearly not what's going on.
I came today with the clearest intentions of finding some space in-between what the Conservatives have proposed, the more exhaustive list frankly, which might actually have been more complete and satisfying, and what the Liberals have come forward with, without consultation, with a very limited list of witnesses, some of which have already told us they already think nothing untoward has happened, and then the potential of a very exhaustive study into some things that we already know, such as the sub judice rules. I can read the Speaker's ruling again if my friends would like me to, not as an attempt to delay justice, because when you delay justice, you deny justice. We at this committee know that better than most do.
It feels to me like every scandal I've ever watched. There's the incident itself and then there's the attempt to hide from any sort of responsibility, which is sometimes greater than the initial incursion, and Canadians don't stand for it. I know that none of my colleagues were here during the sponsorship scandal or any of those days, but the lines from the Liberals sitting at tables like this were that there was nothing to see there, that nothing untoward had happened, and that they believed the Prime Minister when he said that no money had gone to special interests in Quebec during sponsorship. And it just wasn't true. So it's disappointing. I know I'm not a standing and permanent member of this committee, but knowing the work that you've done, knowing Mr. Rankin's contribution, we came into this meeting with hopes. Those have now become a faint hope that next Tuesday in camera behind closed doors suddenly Liberals will believe that hearing from Jody Wilson-Raybould, hearing from Gerald Butts, and hearing from Mathieu Bouchard and others who met extensively with SNC-Lavalin to talk about criminal affairs will suddenly happen. I hope it does, but that hope has become much fainter today.
I will be opposing this motion because it doesn't do what I believe to be the job and responsibility of this committee, which is to work on behalf of Canadians to put some light on this sordid affair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I won't repeat what I said earlier, but, as you can imagine, I completely agree with the proposed amendments and the comments we've just heard. Once again, I would refer the committee to what the notice of meeting says. The committee's job is to study reports of political interference. The committee can't do that without hearing what the central figure in the whole affair has to say. We are talking about the alleged victim of said interference. Otherwise, it is simply a waste of taxpayer money and time to skate around the issue.
The committee is going to hear from three, five, 10 or perhaps even 20 witnesses who will all be asked whether, to their knowledge, someone from the Prime Minister's Office attempted to influence Ms. Wilson-Raybould. They will all tell the committee that they do not know and recommend that the question be put to Ms. Wilson-Raybould, herself. Anyone who's ever been involved in a court proceeding knows how these things work. Even in small claims court, the first person heard in a matter is the victim.
During your opening remarks, Mr. Chair, I was glad to hear you encourage the committee members to work together in a collegial fashion and to set aside partisanship. I thought that very wise. You asked me to end the discussion with some words of wisdom, but I am inclined to repeat yours: the partisan games need to stop. They are detrimental. This is about a spade, so just call it that and let us see it.
As for the rest, I'm not sure what else to add. I would just be going around in circles.
Since I was asked to end the discussion on a wise note, I'm going to give my consent, if you will. I was delighted to hear my colleague Mr. Boissonnault suggest that he'd like to see more of me on the committee. Indeed, the Bloc Québécois would welcome having an active role on this committee and being recognized in the House.
If that's what you're offering, we thank you. We want that recognition, so I'm delighted at the member's suggestion. Mr. Boissonnault, you and I are going to end this meeting with a historic agreement.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you, Mr. Fortin.
It was actually Ms. Khalid who made the suggestion.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think the committee needs to have a recap and to, once again, consider the main motion before voting.
It's very important for the committee and the country to understand what a remediation agreement is and what it entails. It's equally important for Canadians to understand the Shawcross doctrine—to know what the parameters and boundaries are, what types of conversations are normal for people to have with their cabinet colleagues and what kinds of discussions the different government offices are allowed to have with one another. Understanding those basics is essential, and for that reason, we think it's very important for the committee to hear from experts and those who work in the area.
Despite Mr. Cullen's assertion that the sub judice convention is 35 years old, we need to understand what that means in this situation, in 2019. SNC-Lavalin is currently facing not just one, but two, trials. Therefore, we have a duty to examine this very closely so as not to jeopardize a case in the court system. That's one of our fundamental responsibilities.
As for solicitor-client privilege, it's quite clear that the Prime Minister has already asked the current Attorney General, Mr. Lametti, to examine the matter. This is a highly complex and sensitive element of justice that demands in-depth analysis, which our colleague the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada can provide to the Prime Minister. That request has already been made, so we don't need to examine that aspect. I know motions on the issue are forthcoming.
When it comes to the issue of in camera meetings and the colourful language from the opposition about secrecy, let's be clear and put on the record that with in camera discussions the results are known, the decisions are known, after the meetings. We have to make sure that we're able to talk about these sensitive matters in confidence among members of this committee. I look forward to seeing the regular members once again. To Mr. Cooper's point—
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Point of order.
Sorry, Mr. Boissonnault, it's just a small point of order.
To be very brief, what Mr. Boissonnault just said is not entirely correct.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
You said that all decisions that are made in camera are known. Only positive decisions are known.