Justice Committee on Feb. 13th, 2019

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

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to clarify. To Mr. Cullen's point, I really appreciate his comments and I do want to clarify that when I said “nothing”, I did mean “nothing substantiated”. We are basing all of this on recent events, and I'm sure that events will change.

Quite honestly, we've had really good interaction with all colleagues on this committee, and I look forward to discussing the complete witness list with the permanent members of the committee, and those include Murray Rankin and Dave MacKenzie, and with Mr. Barrett and Mr. Cooper, who are here today. I think that will be a very healthy exercise in democracy. Canadians do need to know what the nature of that relationship is, which this motion is addressing.

I can understand that the Conservatives must have gotten their sound bites out today, and that's really what it seems their objective is, and why they're here. The objective of this committee is to get to a conclusion as to what Canadians are looking for, which is a clarification and an understanding of the nature of the relationship between these two bodies.

As I said before, the list of witnesses that is proposed in the motion is not a complete list. The motion clearly says “and that witnesses list include, but not be limited to”. I think my colleagues across the way need to understand and appreciate that. We are hoping we can have a more robust discussion, as is regular committee business, in camera to discuss the full list of witnesses for this proposed study.

I do want to clarify for Mr. Cullen that the role of our committee is not investigative. We really don't have the tools or it's really not the scope of what our committee does. We study issues that are important to Canadians. We study bills and then propose and really study the impact of those bills and legislation on Canadians, but we are not here to look into what basically the Ethics Commissioner has now undertaken to do. We're not here to replace what the Ethics Commissioner will do. We are here to provide an understanding and a clarification to Canadians as to what the nature of the role is between the Attorney General and the Prime Minister's Office and cabinet colleagues in general.

Really, I hope my colleagues across the way will support this motion, which is really a non-partisan version of the motion that the Conservatives have proposed. It is really the bare bones and substance of what everybody around the table and all of Canada really want, that clarification as to the role between how government functions and how decisions are made.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you so much.

The next person on the list is Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a few comments, but I do have a question, picking up on the point that Mr. Paul-Hus raised, which is in respect of the motion that has been put forward by Mr. Boissonnault. There are three individuals on the list and, of course, a number of the key actors coincidentally excluded.

I was wondering who called these witnesses in advance. Was it you, Mr. Boissonnault? Was it you, Mr. Chair? Who called them?

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Who called them? My understanding was that....

Mr. Boissonnault, do you have that answer?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Well, I do have an answer.

My colleagues in the government reached out to these people, and they indicated that they will be able to—

[Lisa Raitt]

Is that the PMO?

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

No, it is not PMO.

[Michael Cooper]

Have they called Mr. Butts?

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Again, we have not...and we purposely, just to be clear—

[Michael Cooper]

Did Mr. Butts refuse?

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We have purposely, the members of this committee, because of the enormous allegations that were coming and that you guys were putting out that the PMO would somehow kibosh this and would tell the people on the committee how to act...we deliberately—very, very deliberately—have not in any way contacted anybody in the PMO, which is why you would never see Mr. Butts' name there. We have not done that.

It's funny. You guys on social media have gone all over saying—

[Michael Cooper]

I asked—

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

—the Liberals on the committee are going to kill this—

[Michael Cooper]

Mr. Chair, I asked a very straightforward question, which was: Who called these three witnesses? There was no clear answer provided. I asked, of the other individuals on the list of our motion, were they contacted too? I haven't received an answer to that. I simply ask it again. It's a straightforward question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

My understanding is nobody else has yet been contacted.

[Michael Cooper]

Just those three individuals.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Yes, and [Inaudible—Editor]

[Michael Cooper]

It's very interesting that the key actors, Mr. Butts, Ms. Telford and others, were not contacted. It says a little bit about maybe where the Liberal members on this committee want to go.

I have to say in response to Mr. Boissonnault that before I came here today, I was really hopeful, given the work we have done together as a committee, that Liberal members on this committee would be as concerned as I and my Conservative colleagues are, as well as New Democrats—Mr. Rankin—and I think most Canadians, about the very serious allegations which, if proven true, speak to corruption at the highest levels of the PMO.

I was hopeful that in light of that, the Liberal members on the committee would want to put the public interest ahead of the interests of the PMO and the interests of the Liberal Party. What we see today, in fact, is just the opposite.

Mr. Boissonnault, in his comments, spoke about the need to dig in and hear about the remediation agreements and deferred prosecution agreements. Well, you know what? I have to say that it's quite ironic, because I wish our justice committee had had the time to examine deferred prosecution agreements. I wish that had come to our committee, where we could have heard from witnesses, where we could have looked at the merits of deferred prosecution agreements, but guess what? That didn't happen.

Why didn't it happen? The finance minister, through the budget omnibus bill, decided to sneak it in, so there was no debate. There was no consultation. There was no consideration, and now we know it was because SNC-Lavalin was busy begging and pleading and lobbying officials in the PMO.

The fact that Mr. Boissonnault wants to go on at length studying these remediation agreements I think speaks to the fact that Liberal members aren't interested in getting answers. They're not interested in getting to the bottom of this, because guess what? The policy around deferred prosecution agreements has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The issue at hand relates to whether officials in the PMO put pressure on the former attorney general, Ms. Wilson-Raybould, to interfere in an independent prosecution, a criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. That is what the issue is.

Let me cite, need there be any clarity, the Krieger decision of the Supreme Court, which says:

It is a constitutional principle that the Attorneys General of this country must act independently of partisan concerns when exercising their delegated sovereign authority to initiate, continue or terminate prosecutions.

Let me also cite the Supreme Court in the Hinse decision, where the court says, at paragraph 40:

The decision to initiate or continue criminal proceedings lies at the core of the Crown prosecutor's powers, and the principle of independence of the prosecutor's office shields prosecutors from the influence of improper political factors.... Prosecutors must be able to act independently of any political pressure from the government and must be beyond the reach of judicial review.... This independence is so fundamental to the integrity and efficiency of the criminal justice system that it is constitutionally entrenched....

That is the issue before us, not the policy issue about deferred prosecution agreements that the government didn't bring before Parliament in a transparent way. It snuck it through.

Mr. Boissonnault talked about solicitor-client privilege. Well, we've said it before, and I'll say it again: The Prime Minister can simply lift the solicitor-client privilege. He has the power to unleash Ms. Wilson-Raybould so that she can come forward and speak the truth, but he doesn't want to do that. Do you know why? I think when she does, and if she does, he's not going to like what she says.

To the point that was made that we've always had these discussions about witnesses in camera, we normally had these discussions in camera, but guess what? This is not a normal matter. This is about corruption at the highest levels of the PMO, and if Liberal members on this committee want to whitewash it, want to cover it up, want to shut down the opposition and our ability to bring these individuals forward to committee so that we can ask the questions and try to get the answers that Canadians deserve, they're going to have to do it in public. And they can be answerable to their constituents, and they can be answerable to Canadians.

With respect to the point about having a meeting to discuss witnesses, I see the Liberal motion. It has three witnesses on the list. We can talk about witnesses. We don't need to wait until another meeting. Why don't we just discuss the witness list today? Let's get on with it. Let's get on with it now. Canadians deserve to have us get on with it so that we can bring these individuals before us at the earliest possible opportunity, something that this motion doesn't provide for, something that our Conservative motion does provide for.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I think there are a few things here that are extremely important to highlight.

First of all, as the chair mentioned, the way that witnesses are generally agreed upon by the various members of a committee and the timetable for studies are all done in camera. We also have the added element of the sub judice rule, which may possibly, as the motion alludes to, require us to obtain a legal opinion. There are real issues at play here with regard to a matter dealing with SNC-Lavalin that is currently before the court. We have to be very sure that we are not improperly encroaching on an area that is properly under litigation in the courts. We have to make sure that we are doing the right thing.

I hear about independence of the judiciary from my friends opposite, but this strikes at the heart of that. If we're going to be encroaching on a matter currently before the court that is the subject of litigation, we have to be really sure that we are not doing something improper as a committee, so the discussion, under the terms of this motion, will happen in camera, and that's perfectly normal. That's the way this usually would go.

I agree with Mr. Cooper that this is certainly an unusual circumstance. Obviously, having this matter come before our committee in this fashion is an unusual tool to use. We are trying to find a way as committee members to work with them on finding an avenue forward. I believe the motion is clear that we're going to deal with it relatively quickly in camera on Tuesday, February 19, as the motion says. It's the perfectly normal way that those discussions would happen among committee members.

I want to also make clear that the purpose of this motion is to stipulate that future meetings would be in public. We're talking about an in camera meeting to discuss those issues that are normally dealt with in camera, with the added element of a legal principle, the sub judice rule, that we as a committee have to consider to ensure that we are not doing something improper.

I want to turn to Mr. Poilievre's statement. He talked about lobbying with SNC-Lavalin. We know there are oftentimes discussions with politicians and lobbyists. That's normal. We know that Andrew Scheer met with SNC-Lavalin. We know that other politicians met with them to discuss a remediation agreement. We know, as Mr. Boissonnault said, that remediation agreements or deferred prosecution agreements, as the members opposite have been calling them, are perfectly usual in other countries that we deal with on a regular basis. I think it is important to put in the whole context of this situation the purpose of remediation agreements, which is why, as I understand it, it is in this motion. I don't think it's just an aside that we should ensure that Canadians understand what the Shawcross doctrine is and what remediation agreements are, but we have to make sure that we are doing it in a thoughtful way.

I would note as well that Mr. Poilievre sits on the finance committee, which would have dealt with the issue of remediation agreements, and I don't recall there being a discussion from Mr. Poilievre at that time about how the matter should come to our committee.

I think there are a number of issues at play here that we do need to take seriously. I think the members on this side of the committee are willing to take these matters seriously and work with our friends in the opposition. To go back to the the chair's original comments, if there is truly an interest in determining these items, then we need to do so in a way that will have the confidence of Canadians.

What I've seen here today I'm not sure would carry the confidence of Canadians. I will leave my comments there and say that I will be supporting this motion unamended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

We will now come back to Mr. Cullen, who has the floor for proposing an amendment.

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

Are we on the amendment now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Yes.

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

How exciting—