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
I just want to bring back the camaraderie. These are hard discussions, and sometimes everybody, including me, is a little angsty, so I think it's good to bring the temperature down.
Mr. McKinnon.
February 13th, 2019 / 2:35 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I'm listening to a conflation of a lot of unrelated matters to weave a fanciful tapestry of intrigue here. The fact is that we don't have any real hard evidence of any wrongdoing to speak of.
Regarding the witnesses, Mr. Cullen said that the people who are alleged to be involved are not on our list. Alleged by whom? We have no one who has come forward, who has self-identified as being privy to the kinds of discussions that are under way here, and who has made, as far as I'm aware, allegations regarding any individuals. So the notion that the people who are alleged to be involved.... The opposition certainly has made allegations of this kind, but these are self-serving to their position.
Mr. Cullen also mentioned that SNC-Lavalin made $500,000 worth of contributions. That's very bizarre to me, because for at least 15 years, that has been impossible. That's been illegal. So I don't know how or where that—
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Then they're all illegal, right? You mentioned $100,000 as being illegal. These are not legal, and they need to be—
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Well, then, they need to be prosecuted by the elections commissioner, right?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Both Conservatives and Liberals returned money for this. That said, nothing has been alleged for the last 10 years; they can't donate now. But let's move on from that one.
Go ahead, Mr. McKinnon.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Okay. I stand corrected on that point.
There are also allegations that Ms. Wilson-Raybould was fired as attorney general. There is no foundation to that. She went from a senior position to another senior position. She went to a senior position as veterans affairs minister in charge of a multi-billion dollar file and thousands and thousands of veterans who are critically important to Canadians. As well, as associate Minister of Defence, she's briefed on all the matters pertinent to defence and aware of our defence posture and our defence matters all around the world. It's a great opportunity. It's a coup, frankly, for her experience. I can't see how in any way this could be construed as being fired. But the notion that she was fired weaves back into this tapestry that the opposition likes to portray, that there is some sort of intrigue going on here, but I don't think there is any foundation for that whatsoever.
We're here today because of this article that was written by Bob Fife and others on the seventh, in which they alleged heavy pressure, urging, and so forth. They left the impression that any interaction between the cabinet, the PMO, and the attorney general was illegitimate, and yet on the following day, the same authors quoted also unnamed officials as saying the following:
...Canadians should not conflate or confuse a “vigorous debate” in the Prime Minister’s Office or among the PMO and members of cabinet over how to handle SNC-Lavalin’s charges with an effort to put pressure on Ms. Wilson-Raybould. A robust discussion is not pressure, one official said. Another official said the PMO had every right to raise the prosecution case with the justice minister, because a conviction could destroy the company and hurt thousands of workers at SNC-Lavalin.
I think one of the problems here is that the impression is out there in the public eye, because of these kinds of statements, that there has been something illicit going on. We have no foundation for that. We have allegations based on somebody's interpretation of discussions, and we don't know who they are or whether they're even privy to any discussions. I think it's very clear that we must make it clear that it is both legal and customary for there to be discussions between the minister of justice and attorney general and colleagues in the government on issues such as the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin in order for the minister of justice and the attorney general to obtain information and advice.
The real question here is not whether such discussions occurred but whether such discussions involved direction to the former minister of justice and attorney general to proceed in a particular way and whether that exceeded the Shawcross doctrine. That's why it's so important that we study the Shawcross doctrine, so we can know what those boundaries are and have some idea of what it would take to cross those boundaries. The question has been raised about whether or not we should even be talking about the remediation agreement concept.
The original article also speaks of these alleged interactions trying to influence the attorney general to abandon the prosecution. That's absolutely not what remediation agreements are about. Remediation agreements are basically a form of plea bargain, which are available to the accused in all manner of aspects of law—of criminal law, anyway. It's absolutely not an escape from consequences for their wrongful action, but they have to admit to the wrongfulness of the action, they have to pay a substantial penalty, and they have to make real and significant changes in their operations to ensure it doesn't happen again. This is not in any way escaping prosecution or escaping the consequences of bad actions.
On balance, I don't see anybody who actually is privy to these discussions, who is alleged to have been making these allegations, coming forward. How can we deal with random people as just a fishing expedition to try to figure out whether or not there is any foundation for this and then track it down?
That is why I think it is important that we delve into the nature and purpose of the Shawcross doctrine, and the nature and purpose, and the history perhaps, of the remediation agreements. I'm very interested in hearing from the current Minister of Justice and the other people mentioned in our motion with regard to these broad issues. If they are able to throw light on other matters, fine, that would great, and perhaps that would lead us into a further understanding of who else might need to be talked to as well.
I will be voting against the amendment and in favour of the original motion. Thank you.
Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For two hours, we've been beating around the bush. Our Liberal colleagues are critical because my eminent colleagues have joined us at this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We are here today because this matter is of capital importance for Canadians. For some time now, Ms. Khalid has been saying that we are doing this for the benefit of the media and that we are grandstanding. I think that fundamentally, our objective goes far beyond that. As I stated earlier, we are in a country that respects the rule of law.
I want to go back to the motion and to my colleague's amendment. We are being criticized for the motion we tabled but were not able to introduce, which contains the names of witnesses we wanted to call. We were told that that should be done in camera. We were told that witnesses that may be called are discussed in camera and called afterwards. However, the motion that is before us and that the Liberals have rammed down our throats today includes some names. So the Liberals held an in camera meeting. We don't know who took part in it, but these names were submitted. There is the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, who agreed to appear before the committee and to have his name appear in the famous motion. There is also Ms. Nathalie Drouin, the Deputy Minister of Justice, and Mr. Michael Wernick, the Clerk of the Privy Council. The Liberals decided amongst themselves, in camera, to include those names in a motion.
Now we are being told today that in order to discuss other names, the meeting has to be held in camera. When my NDP colleague proposed some names, he was told that it was impossible to discuss them. We were just told that this motion would be voted down because it has to be discussed in camera. Why was there no discussion about these names before?
As you can see, what is happening today is really a farce. The situation is very serious. I don't remember if it was Mr. Boissonnault or Mr. McKinnon who mentioned that Mr. Robert Fife and Mr. Steven Chase, two professional Globe and Mail journalists, may have created fake news by writing this article. People are trying to direct our attention elsewhere. Finally, we are being told about the Shawcross doctrine and the remediation agreement. All of the topics being raised today are in the motion. We have been talking about this for two hours and we have covered the matter. I am not trying to put on a show. I am a good Quebecker and this is my way of expressing myself.
In my opinion, we are making Canadians a laughingstock today. The motion that was tabled by the two opposition parties, mainly by the Conservatives, was consistent with the principles of a country subject to the rule of law. There is a problem. The former attorney general of Canada was indirectly dismissed from her position and yesterday she resigned. This is serious. You are trying to create a diversion by using a host of procedures. I think we have to go to the heart of the issue and resolve these matters as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Liberal
Carleton, CPC
Mr. Chair, committee members across the way have claimed that I'm on the finance committee and that they've never heard any discussion at that committee about the need to move this new deferred prosecution agreement provision over to the justice committee. Well, the member should have read the transcripts, because that is exactly what members of multiple parties suggested should happen—in fact all three parties.
My friend Mr. Cullen has said that Greg Fergus, a Liberal member from the Gatineau region, raised concerns, which my colleague has quoted. I will quote further. He said of the agreements, “In a sense, then, if I steal $10, I'm in trouble, but if I steal $10 million, I can work this out—to be crude, sorry.” Furthermore, the chairman of the committee suggested that finance was not the appropriate place in which such a provision should be discussed.
Finally, Conservative member of Parliament Dan Albas said, “Regardless of whether it was in the budget document, I think that this is not a good provision to have as part of an omnibus piece of legislation, especially to have it in the last section.” He went on, “Mr. Chair, I don't know what to say other than maybe we should probably consider hiving this off and sending it to the justice committee.” Those were his words. That was his conclusion: It was an amendment to the Criminal Code, and it ought to have been discussed here.
I find it very interesting that all of a sudden the Liberals want to discuss the intricacies of deferred prosecution agreements. They want us to fall into comas, deep irreversible comas, as they drone on about legal theories rather than talking about the facts of the case before us. The facts are that a massive corporate giant with deep pockets lobbied the Prime Minister's Office at least 14 times that we know of, that the Prime Minister's Office and the Prime Minister himself then raised the issue of a special deal for that same corporation with the justice minister, and then only a month later, she was suddenly removed from the position, following which she wrote a letter saying that she had spoken truth to power.
It's time she had the chance to speak truth to the people. Canadians want to know. The Prime Minister has the ability to let them know. He can allow his members to vote for this amendment to bring all the witnesses, including his former attorney general, to appear, and he can waive solicitor-client privilege because he is the client. If he refuses to do that and if members of the committee vote against having additional witnesses, they will be voting for a cover-up, as that is exactly what this is. If the members across the way claim nothing that happened in the Prime Minister's Office was improper, then, fine, bring the witnesses before us, and have them testify under oath to say exactly that. Put all the facts before Canadians, and let everyone decide.
Instead, what we get are contradictory excuses. One is they say they can't talk about witnesses when Canadians are watching. They say those discussions need to happen in secret, in camera, as the parliamentary parlance goes. Funny then that their motion talks about witnesses. It lists witnesses that they would authorize to speak before the committee. If they can put forward a motion that lists witnesses, why can't we put forward a motion that lists witnesses? Let's have ourselves a big group of witnesses. They don't want to vote for that because there are certain witnesses they don't want to hear from, certain things that might be said that they don't want said when Canadian eyes and ears are watching and listening. Those things have to be kept secret.
The journalists, according to government officials, have to leave the room; the transcripts have to be turned off, and nobody outside of that dark room should have the ability, according to the government, to find out what is said. That is, by definition, a cover-up.
The committee members representing the Liberal caucus at this committee have the ability to vote in favour of transparency by allowing everyone to speak. Are they going to help the Prime Minister cover this up or are they going to help Canadians find out what happened here?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
It's powerful, but it's interesting that the narrative is that we were going to not support any study on this issue and we were going to cover it up. Now that we've put forward a motion on the study, we're said to be covering up as well.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
It's not what you said; I agree. But you are pretty much alone on that one.
Mr. Fortin.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I've been listening to our discussions for the past while. I have before me the agenda for today's meeting, which states that we're here to discuss the request to study the reports of political interference in a criminal prosecution by the Prime Minister's Office.
The Prime Minister or a member of his office allegedly politically interfered with the former attorney general of Canada. I wonder how we can shed led on this situation without hearing from the person who held the position of attorney general of Canada at the time of the events in question.
I have two things in mind.
I see that you're having a discussion, Mr. Chair. Would you prefer to suspend the meeting?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
No, I should have been listening to you. Mr. Cullen and I were talking about something else. Sorry.
What was your question?
Bloc
