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.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Oh, excuse me.
Mr. Fortin, your name is in fact on the list...
2:15 p.m.
Bloc
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
... but so are the names of several other people. I did tell Mr. Cullen that when we got to the end of the list, I would give him the floor.
2:15 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
No problem. I thought the amendment would be put forward at the end.
2:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
To my friends, of course committees have the power to investigate. We're doing that right now on Cambridge Analytica and Facebook at the ethics and access to information committee. Of course we have the power. The question is whether we want to use the power or not. This committee can subpoena witnesses. This committee can deliver findings to the House of Commons, and in the full public light of day.
The Ethics Commissioner will do very good work, and you'll only see the report. You won't see the interviews. You won't see the questions. You won't see the cross-examination.
It bears some suspicion, my Liberal friends, that the only people you put on your witness list are people who—two out of three—have already publicly said that they don't think there is anything to see here. It's somehow a coincidence that your witnesses....
Randy, you've offered up witnesses already. We're talking witnesses, so we're going to talk about them today. The people who are alleged to have been involved in what is one of the most serious cases that I've seen in my life in politics are not on your list. The people who are on your list have publicly said, “We feel that everything was done properly.”
In terms of the independence of the judiciary, my friend, that note should have been passed around the Prime Minister's Office some months ago, and if we do respect that, then these allegations that we're now seeing printed in our national newspaper wouldn't have come to light because they wouldn't have happened. That we have very clear rules delineating the ability to try to influence the independence of the Attorney General, to then influence the prosecution counsel...it seems disturbing to me.
To the point around this amendment that SNC-Lavalin lobbied your government exhaustively...and they spent a lot of money doing it, as they did by spending $500,000 in donations to your party and another $100,000 that was illegally donated to your party from SNC-Lavalin.
Here is what your Liberal member on the committee said about this amendment:
What strikes me as being wrong is that these remediation provisions seem to be focused on white-collar crime, or at least limited to white-collar crime.
Further on the member said:
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth in the sense that it seems we're going to let off people who commit a very serious economic crime, which has very serious effects against those who are not capable of negotiating these agreements in other crimes they might be victims of or are perpetrators of. We seem to be letting off people in white-collar crimes with a little slap on the wrist.
Here is what the Liberal chair of the finance committee said:
[T]here is a huge question of whether this should be in a budget bill. Even I will say that.
It was slipped into an omnibus budget bill. It was not a financial measure. Who are we kidding? It was lobbied for by a multinational company. They secured that. The allegation now is that they then lobbied the Prime Minister's Office to then put pressure on the former attorney general, Jody Wilson-Raybould, to give them a plea deal so that SNC-Lavalin could keep bidding on lucrative federal government contracts. That's what this is about. They've been banned from World Bank contracts, and if they were found guilty in court of fraud and corruption, bribery, they would be excluded from bidding on lucrative federal government contracts.
That's what this is about: two sets of rules. As your Liberal members at the finance committee said, it gave them great concern: special rules for those who are well connected and other rules for those who aren't, who are average Canadians, the middle class and those working hard to join it, I think is the popular phrase.
The power of this committee to actually find out what happened here is substantial. We are given this role on behalf of Canadians. To simply say that this is a sophisticated legal book club—that we can explore and study and contemplate these things—would be to forgo our responsibilities when we see something like this.
The witnesses you've offered are suspect, in the sense that they've already made themselves and their opinions on this known. The other principal actors.... I'm going to say this now and I'll say it again. We should perhaps stop trying to speak for Jody Wilson-Raybould. We can invite her. We can offer her the opportunity and she can use her counsel and her very good knowledge of law to decide what it is that she will and will not say. The fact that Liberal committee members don't even want to hear from her is telling.
If you do want to hear from her, Mr. Fraser, put her on the list.
You've phoned some other people. You had somebody phone some other people. You didn't phone Gerry Butts. Well, why not? It bears asking.
What I will suggest is this:
That the Justice and Human Rights committee hold meetings to examine the role of the Attorney General in Canada's system of justice and other pertinent legal matters, and that witnesses list include but not be limited to:
—the three that have been mentioned already, and including:
former minister of veterans affairs, Jody Wilson-Raybould;
principal secretary to the Prime Minister, Gerald Butts;
senior advisor to the Prime Minister, Mathieu Bouchard
and that the Committee meet on Tuesday, February 19th, 2019, at a time set by the Chair
—and it continues as per the original motion.
If my Liberal colleagues think that hearing from Jody Wilson-Raybould isn't of interest to Canadians, if my Liberal colleagues think that not hearing from the principal secretary to the Prime Minister, who's implicated in this affair, is not of interest to Canadians, and that his senior adviser, Mr. Bouchard, is not of interest to Canadians, I'll let you try to explain that. You can't circle around this whole problem and then suddenly say we're just not interested in hearing from the principal actors. It makes no sense. Please don't say that other witnesses may be considered as we....
We're talking about witnesses today, Randy. Let's do it. If you don't want to do that, if you don't want to have those people invited, we're about to have a vote, and you can describe that. But to say that we'll meet in camera and we'll discuss it in private....
It's as obvious as the nose on my face that this is something we have to do—and the nose on my face is pretty obvious.
2:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Just so I'm clear, Mr. Cullen, your amendment is to add three additional people to the existing motion. Is that correct?
2:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I also suggest a rewording in the very first sentence. I can read it again more slowly, if you like.
2:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It states:
That the Justice and Human Rights Committee hold meetings to examine the role of the Attorney General in Canada's system of justice and other pertinent legal matters,
The attempt there is to allow for Shawcross and sub judice, for those ones that we've all agreed are important—
and that the witnesses list include, but not be limited to
Here it's the three who are mentioned in the original motion, plus the three I just added—
and that the committee meet on Tuesday, February 19th
I've struck “in camera” from the motion so that we can have an open conversation. I know it's a little unprecedented for this committee. This whole thing is unprecedented. The light of day is our best ally in all of this.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
As I understand it, there are basically three parts to the amendment, but it's all one amendment that you're proposing.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
It would add three additional witnesses. In the first paragraph, it would revise the wording. We'll all get a copy of what you have proposed. As well, it would remove the words “in camera” from the second paragraph.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Okay. Hopefully, we'll be able to get copies shortly.
I guess we're now on the subject of the amendment. I have a speakers list on the main motion. Do we now create a new speakers list on the amendment, or will everybody who wants to speak to the main motion turn to the amendment now?
We have Ms. Raitt.
2:20 p.m.
Milton, CPC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I will speak to the motion, and I will let the member know that we'll be voting in favour of it. We do think that's getting to the point, and for two reasons. Number one, it does deal with the issue of the witnesses who do need to be heard in this situation. Number two, we will reject any motion that has the proviso that this committee will meet in camera. That will be the clear line for the Conservative side of this committee, for the reason that it is imperative we have light shone on this and that we ensure that Canadians get to see what's going on, specifically as the witnesses come forward.
Mr. Chair, you said yourself that if there was a problem, the attorney general would resign. You said that many times in the media. And indeed she has resigned. Therefore, there is a situation here that does need to be studied. That's why including her on the list of witnesses, as Mr. Cullen has done, makes sense and is actually imperative to our success in getting to the bottom of what happened.
Second, Mr. Speaker...or Mr. Chair—sorry—I'm intrigued by what seems to be a difference of opinion on the purpose of the meeting. I understand that the Liberal side will be voting in favour of their motion as unamended, as Mr. Fraser has said. I'll wait to hear what they have to say about the amendment that has been proposed by Mr. Cullen now. But from the way in which it's been characterized on the Liberal side, they have indicated that Canadians want clarification on the relationship between the Attorney General and the cabinet, whereas our point of view, and the point of view of most of the editorials in the Canadian newspaper world, is that we want to get to the bottom of political interference in the attorney general's office.
I'll quote from a decision that my colleague Mr. Cooper brought along from Alberta. The part of this decision that caught my attention is the following:
The quasi-judicial function of the Attorney General cannot be subjected to interference from parties who are not as competent to consider the various factors involved in making a decision to prosecute. To subject such decisions to political interference, or to judicial supervision, could erode the integrity of our system of prosecution.
I think that's exactly why we want to hear from the witnesses, Mr. Chair. We want to determine what were the conversations that happened with the attorney general and whether or not, according to the Supreme Court of Canada, this was something of concern.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, my colleague—
2:25 p.m.
Milton, CPC
I'm so sorry about that, Mr. Chair. Aspirations are always good. That's good.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
2:25 p.m.
Milton, CPC
Mr. Chair, as my colleague Mr. Cooper has pointed out, we have not received a response to this, and I think we deserve a response to this. Both in the original motion, which has now been amended, as well as in statements made by members on the other side, there's a reference to this unknown group of government colleagues, “our government colleagues”. My understanding is that our government colleagues had conversations with the office of the attorney general and discussions, so we want to understand what that is. Maybe there are going to be witnesses coming from our government colleagues. Also, when you were pressed on who contacted the three witnesses—because you told us that they've already agreed to show up and that's why it's okay to talk about them as witnesses—we didn't really receive an answer as to who our government colleagues are in that case. I believe we deserve an answer as to who our government colleagues are who contacted these three, and I will gladly sit here and wait until you give them to me.
2:25 p.m.
Milton, CPC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I've asked a question and I'm wondering if you can illuminate for us as the chair, because you're in charge of the agenda, who the government colleagues are who called these three proposed witnesses.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Number one, I don't think the words “government colleagues” were previously used. I'll turn to Mr. Boissonnault again to answer that question—