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.
2:55 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Okay.
A meeting was called today so that we could study the reports that the Prime Minister's Office politically interfered with the former attorney general of Canada.
With all due respect, the Liberals' proposal seems to be a red herring. As one of my Conservative colleagues said, the Liberals want to provide law courses on the Shawcross doctrine and explain the remediation agreements to us. I understand that this came into effect in the fall, but I think that everyone can read and learn about it. They're proposing that we hear from three witnesses who won't be able to speak about the issue at hand, namely, the reports of political interference.
In this whole matter, I have two concerns in mind. First, I can picture the nearly 4,000 Quebec workers whose jobs are at stake as a result of discussions between the attorney general's representative in court and counsel for SNC-Lavalin. These 4,000 workers and their families are indirect, and perhaps even direct victims of the situation. The situation may not be resolved because our Prime Minister acted in a somewhat amateurish way with regard to the former attorney general and because he doesn't want to release her from her solicitor-client privilege obligations so that we can hear from her.
Of all the witnesses on the list, the one witness we should hear from is Jody Wilson-Raybould. I don't see how else we can start. I was reading the names of the witnesses and listening to our discussions. I felt as if I were preparing for a trip without anyone telling me where I'm going. Since I don't know where I'm going, I'm bringing my swimsuit, shorts, jeans, suit and everything I need for fishing and hunting. We'll hear from a number of witnesses, but we'll always be beating around the bush.
Why don't we have Jody Wilson-Raybould here? She was the attorney general of Canada. According to reports, she was the victim of political interference by the Prime Minister's Office. Once we've heard from Ms. Wilson-Raybould and she has told us that certain people have said, done or requested one thing or another, we can prepare a more relevant list of witnesses.
Currently, it's a real hunting trip. In my humble opinion, the Liberal motion is a red herring. The Conservative motion gives me the impression that we want to put SNC-Lavalin on trial. However, that's not the committee's role.
SNC-Lavalin committed fraud. Some executives have even already paid for it. If there are others, they'll continue to pay, and that's fine. The people who committed fraud must be penalized. Should the company be penalized? Yes. That said, a remediation process exists. We'll see whether an agreement will be reached. Last week, Mr. Lametti said that an agreement was still possible. I'm keeping my fingers crossed, not for me or SNC-Lavalin, but for the workers and their families who need these jobs. We're talking about 4,000 families who will be affected by unemployment because we can't reach an agreement to maintain their jobs.
The Prime Minister acted in an amateurish way. He's refusing to allow the former attorney general of Canada to explain the situation. I find this shocking and worrisome.
I don't want to carry out the work of the prosecutor in this case, counsel for SNC-Lavalin or the Ethics Commissioner. They each have their mandate. I think that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights must study the reports of political interference by the Prime Minister's Office. To do so, we should hear from Jody Wilson-Raybould first.
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments on the SNC-Lavalin workers. This is a very important matter for us in Quebec. It's a very important company.
Before I put the amendment to a vote, Ms. Khalid and Mr. Boissonnault would like to speak. Mr. Cullen will then take the floor to wrap up the discussions on his amendment. After the amendment has been put to a vote, we'll go back to the main proposal.
Ms. Khalid.
3 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you for your comments, Mr. Fortin.
Although I don't agree with the premise, I would appreciate it if you would come to our committee a lot more and shed light on the important issues we discuss. I really would love to have this kind of attention in our committee to the very important issues we have studied, such as human trafficking, our latest study, and recommendations on dealing with this very important and tragic issue our country, and ensuring that Canadians, middle-class families, have access to justice.
That comes to the crux of the issue: what does an in camera meeting really do for a committee? It takes away the partisanship. It takes away the political posturing, which we have been privy to today. It allows us to have frank discussions to see who can come forward to have the most fruitful discussions on issues.
Canadians have a right to know and to seek clarification through our committee. I think our committee owes it to Canadians not to be so partisan, not to be here looking for sound bites to embarrass persons, our Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's Office. We need to put that partisanship aside.
We need to come to the table, hopefully with the permanent members of the committee, to discuss at length who will really speak to the issues before us today, to have the most fruitful discussions. Canadians voted for us to represent them, to speak for them. I hope we can give them what they have voted for, which is impartial, honest representation of their needs, their demands and their wants through this impartial committee. I hope that members across the way can really support that.
I don't think we should be changing the way we conduct ourselves just because the cameras are on. We need to have that impartial discussion. My fear is that if the cameras are on, my colleagues across the way will not be able to shut off their partisanship. That's why I don't support the amendments proposed by Mr. Cullen.
Thanks, Chair.
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you so much, Ms. Khalid.
The last speaker is Mr. Boissonnault. Then we will go to Mr. Cullen to finish up his closing remarks on the amendment, and then we'll vote on the amendment.
3 p.m.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think that we should go back to Mr. Fortin's comments. I fully agree that we have neither the mandate nor the means to conduct the SNC-Lavalin trial here. There are other places to conduct the trial.
In my opinion, certain facts regarding the exact content of the amendment must also be clarified. The attorney general didn't resign, nor was she dismissed. A cabinet member who was Minister of Veterans Affairs resigned. That person, the former attorney general, can't talk about what she experienced as attorney general because it isn't her most recent mandate in cabinet. This is very important.
Regarding the point raised by Mr. Poilievre, I want to say that, on November 7, 2018, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights addressed the issue of remediation agreements. Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Rankin, Mr. McKinnon, Mr. Fraser and the chair spoke about the issue at the time. It's not accurate to say that this issue has never been addressed here at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Out of respect for my colleagues, I want to point out that, when our Conservative colleagues asked the important question regarding our witnesses, my answer wasn't accurate. I took a comment from the chair, as I was supposed to do. I checked. Obviously, Mr. Lametti will appear before our committee. He has publicly stated that, if the committee were to call him, he would come. No one from the head of government's office has called these witnesses. However, since Mr. Wernick and Ms. Drouin are public servants, when they're called to appear before a committee, it's normal for them to do so. In this case, the committee is the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. According to the procedure, these official calls must be issued after our committee has made the decision. I'm sorry that I misspoke.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you, Mr. Boissonnault.
I'll now give the floor to Mr. Cullen, so that he can wrap up the discussion on his amendment.
3:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I tried in this amendment to combine the interests of hearing from the relevant people. So far I've heard from Liberals that they're not interested in inviting Ms. Jody Wilson-Raybould to talk—
3:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Well, you're about to vote against my motion, which asks her to come as a witness. That is true then. You can say something is not true, but then you—
3:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay, so my Liberal friends are trying to help me here I think, Chair. The suggestion is that next Tuesday, in camera, we're going to put Ms. Jody Wilson-Raybould on the list.
3:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Oh, we will discuss it. We're discussing it right now, and yet, with the cameras on and people witnessing our conversation, you won't commit to it. You understand the difference between discussing something and committing to something, and you also understand the difference that “just trust me” isn't going to work in this particular conversation, because “just trust me” was what the Prime Minister was doing. Also, to the comment that we're here to try to embarrass the Prime Minister, he's doing that all on his own. He doesn't need my help. He doesn't need the help of any of us. He's conducting himself in the way he thinks is best, and frankly, as I commented before, I think his comments have been beneath the office of the Prime Minister when he literally stood in front of buses to talk about how terrible Jody Wilson-Raybould was in her role and how she disappointed him— my goodness—misunderstanding the role of the attorney general entirely. That's fine; I'm sure he'll have a briefing.
I have one quick comment, Chair, to you, because with regard to sub judice—something before the court that we would worry about impinging upon—thankfully, 35 years ago we had a ruling by the Speaker of the House of Commons. I'll read it just to assure committee members that we can investigate this case while it's going on in court:
The House has never allowed the sub judice convention to stand in the way of its consideration of a matter vital to public interest or to the effective operation of the House.
Does anyone want me to repeat that?
3:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Again:The House has never allowed the sub judice convention to stand in the way of its consideration of a matter vital to public interest or to the effective operation of the House.
We've had 35 years in which we've lived under this rule as parliamentarians. We're quite comfortable with it, so the motion that I put forward today was an attempt to combine the concerns raised.
For my friend Mr. McKinnon, if the only witnesses we ever invited to committee were only those who self-identified in the middle of a fraud, we'd never have witnesses at committee. We can't necessarily wait for them to put their hand up and say, “Oh, yes, I put pressure on the former attorney general of Canada. Please invite me to your committee.” Sometimes we have to go out and seek them.
Mr. Bouchard met 15 times with SNC-Lavalin. What did he talk about? It was justice and law enforcement. This company met over and over again with senior members of the Prime Minister's Office to discuss justice and law enforcement. That is an incredible interest in justice and law enforcement by a construction and engineering company.
If there is nothing untoward here, which is what you Liberal members keep telling us, the first accusation you have made is that opposition members are making accusations without evidence. Then you go on to say that the evidence can't be true because of your unfounded allegations that somehow the Prime Minister said this, and so then everything must be clear. The Prime Minister's arguments have not worked out well. If you want to alleviate the suspicions of Canadians that there is the potential of any effort to cover up—I'm not suggesting the PMO is instructing you to do it. You might just be doing it on your own. If you want to alleviate that suspicion, then allow Ms. Wilson-Raybould to come forward. Allow the principal secretary to come forward. Allow Mr. Bouchard, who met 15 times with SNC-Lavalin, to come forward.
It's frustrating for me.
On Mr. Ehsassi's point, I'm not going to give you too much credit for showing up; you had to show up. The opposition members have the authority under Standing Order 106(4) to call a meeting like this. I'm glad you're here. I'm glad we're talking about this, but in the attempt to find some joint resolution that would allow us to do a proper investigation into this, which is what committees do from time to time, the Liberals seem to have dug in and said we are going to invite only these three witnesses—
3:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes it is, because when I've suggested other witnesses, you're just about to vote against my suggestions, so it is true. If later, on Tuesday in camera, you decide that the witnesses I have suggested or my colleagues from the Conservatives have suggested are now important to you because they're at the centre of this matter, then, wonderful, we'll go from there, but we have this opportunity here today and you haven't even bothered to phone them, or have someone phone them or whatever the case may be.
It is interesting that we want to study remediation now after it's already passed into law.
In terms of the offer, I think Mr. Boissonnault made the offer to discuss.... I certainly won't speak for the Conservatives, but if you would like to hear what we heard at the SNC-Lavalin meeting with some of my colleagues, I'd be happy to show you ours if you'd show us yours. We will, in fact, come forward and tell you everything that was discussed at that meeting. I know the result of that meeting. When SNC-Lavalin asked for the special plea deal to be worked into a budget agreement, we told them no, and then we voted against it. You folks put it into an omnibus bill, which your own members sitting on the finance committee found inappropriate, and you still pushed it through Parliament. Actions speak just as loudly as words do here.
Last I will say that this committee in particular has a solid and well-deserved reputation for trying to find common ground over sometimes very tricky and difficult issues with regard to justice. It is held up as one of the higher committees. The amendment to the motion that I put forward today, Chair, was in respect to that tradition. I don't know if the accusations of partisanship and whatnot were also directed at me. It doesn't really matter, but to vote against what most Canadians would see as a pretty reasonable amendment.... If you're open to hearing from Ms. Wilson-Raybould, then vote for it. If you're open to hearing from Mr. Butts, then vote for it, as well as from Mr. Bouchard. If you're not, then you'll vote against it and those actions will speak louder than your words.
With that, I move my amendment to the central motion brought by the Liberal Party.
3:10 p.m.
St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC
Chair, I'd ask for a recorded vote and let the record show that anyone who votes against Mr. Cullen's very reasonable amendment is voting in favour of a cover-up.
3:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
3:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I'll just leave it at that.
Mr. Clerk, we'll proceed with a vote on the amendment.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
Now we are back on the principal motion, colleagues.
The meeting was originally scheduled for two hours. We've now passed that point. My question for you is whether or not everybody is prepared to limit the remaining speakers to those on the list and whoever puts up their hand right now. Then we will move to a vote on the main motion.
The people who are now on the list are Mr. Barrett, Ms. Khalid and Mr. Fraser. I will add Mr. Cooper and Mr. Poilievre.
Is there anyone else? Mr. Cullen and Mr. Boissonnault.
Speak now or forever hold your peace, everyone.
Mr. Fortin, I suppose that you'll be the last one. I hope that you'll finish with wise words.
3:10 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Wise words are all that I have. I don't always say them wisely, but they're nothing more than wise words.
