Justice Committee on Feb. 21st, 2019

[Michael Wernick]

If they exist.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Would you be willing to undertake to go back and ask for these?

[Michael Wernick]

Yes.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

At the time of September 17, Mr. Clerk, the Prime Minister had met with Ms. Wilson-Raybould already, and in that meeting he had indicated to her that it was her decision. Why would the Attorney General be in a position of having to make a decision at that point?

[Michael Wernick]

It was always going to be her decision, and the decision was open through September, October and November, and it's still open to the DPP to change her mind and to the minister to exercise the powers on the law.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Then we're clearly in agreement that the request or the comment that it's hers and hers alone to decide isn't about deciding whether to give a deferred prosecution agreement, but it's to overturn the director of public prosecutions.

[Michael Wernick]

“Overturn” would not be the word I'd choose—

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Issue a directive....

[Michael Wernick]

There is a provision in the statute passed by this Parliament that gives some authorities to the Minister of Justice as ultimately the chief prosecutor of Canada to take over the prosecution or to seek the reasons from the prosecutor.

I am not privy to any of the conversations between the DPP and the Minister of Justice.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

You are privy to the conversation with SNC-Lavalin. I have to submit that I find it very strange and indeed odd that SNC-Lavalin, knowing as they had known at that point in time for approximately 13 days, that they were not receiving a deferred prosecution agreement, would not mention it to the Clerk of the Privy Council, who is the deputy minister to the Prime Minister of Canada, and gives advice to the Prime Minister on matters of great importance.

Indeed, Mr. Clerk, I would submit that it is highly unusual that you would be taking such a meeting with an individual company. You're a very busy executive in the country. I find it surprising that you would, so quickly after they were turned down, have a meeting with SNC-Lavalin and yet not have them tell you that they were rejected by the director of public prosecutions.

Is that your testimony: that they did not tell you?

[Michael Wernick]

I don't know whether they did or not. I can tell you that the company asked for meetings with me several times. I make it a practice to meet with a lot of people who ask for meetings—union leaders, NGO leaders, indigenous leaders, provincial officials. I meet with a lot of people and I meet with a lot of companies as well.

The company is not a pariah. It has not been convicted. It is going to trial.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

I'm not saying it was.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Ms. Raitt, you are at six minutes.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

I do not want that impression to be on the record—that I think there is anything wrong with meeting with SNC-Lavalin, and I don't appreciate the Clerk indicating that he thinks I'm trying to do so, because I am not. What I am saying, Mr. Chair, is that there was a bad inference just left there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Okay, you clarified the inference—

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Well—

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

—and we all understand that it was not your intention....

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

It's not even what I said. That is a complete misconstruction of exactly what I said, which was that I am surprised they didn't tell him.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

That's fine. We're not eating into anybody's time.

Now we're going to Mr. Boissonnault, for six minutes.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Clerk, thank you very much for joining us today.

I would like to start by acknowledging, and correct me if I'm wrong on the numbers, that you have 37 years of dedication to the federal public service, which span numerous Conservative and Liberal governments. You and I have had occasion to work together on my LGBTQ responsibilities.

My first question for you today, Mr. Wernick, is related to conversations that take place between the Prime Minister, or officials in the PMO, and ministers. Specifically, I would like to know, is it appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials in the PMO to talk to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General about an active case?

[Michael Wernick]

The appropriate boundaries of those conversations are exactly the issue of the Shawcross doctrine, and I would point everybody on the committee to “Open and Accountable Government”, which is the Prime Minister's playbook. There was one from Prime Minister Harper with similar language, and there is one that was issued by the Prime Minister in November 2015. It specifically refers in detail to the Prime Minister's view of what is appropriate and not appropriate in terms of dealing with legal matters.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you very much.

I appreciate that according to the book and according to what you have said, it is appropriate for such conversations to take place, and there are parameters. In your role as Clerk, have you ever witnessed inappropriate pressure being applied by the Prime Minister, or officials in the Prime Minister's office, to the former minister of justice and attorney general on the issue of remediation agreements or any other issue?

[Michael Wernick]

No. At every opportunity verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was the decision for the Minister of Justice to take. She was the decision-maker.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I think it’s important to ask the question in French.

[Michael Wernick]

Yes.