Evidence of meeting #135 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 general.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Okay.
In here—I'm sorry, I don't recall—it did say somewhere in these conversations that you—or that your staff related on behalf of you—would be, at least in the September time frame, open to having further conversations on the SNC-Lavalin matter.
Is that not correct? Or, in September, you had felt comfortable and confident that the decision was made.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Well, during that time frame, I had commenced conversations and had asked for briefings, as I regularly did when I received a section 13 notice. I think it's fair for me to say that there was a heightened awareness about this section 13 notice that came in with respect to SNC. These conversations were all internal to the Department of Justice. I was exercising, with my Attorney General hat on, what was appropriate for me to consider based on what I read in the section 13 note from the director.
We did not reach out externally. The Minister of Finance's office reached out to my department and then these conversations began.
February 27th, 2019 / 4:45 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I have to say that I am very shaken by what I've heard here today. I've been a lawyer for over 40 years. I've taught a generation of law students about the rule of law. What I've heard today should make all Canadians extremely upset.
Ms. Wilson-Raybould, we're both from British Columbia. We've known each other for many years. I need you to know that I believe you entirely. I want you to know, as well, that I very much admire your courage in being here and telling Canadians what you have experienced.
I believe—if we believe you, which I do—that there is no other conclusion that one can reasonably draw but that there was a sustained, consistent effort to interfere politically with the critical role that an Attorney General must play in our legal system.
To quote what you said, “I experienced a consistent and sustained effort by many people within the government to seek to politically interfere in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in my role as the Attorney General of Canada in an inappropriate effort to secure a deferred prosecution agreement...”.
You talked of 10 phone calls, 10 meetings specifically about that. Then you talked about what I would call the consequences and threats if you didn't knuckle under. You said, “the potential for consequences, and veiled threats if a DPA was not made available to SNC” were brought to your attention during those conversations.
My question is this: How can Canadians, if they believe you, as I do, draw any other conclusion but that there was an attempt to politically interfere with your role as our independent Attorney General?
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Well, thank you for the comments and the question, albeit I think that the question is somewhat rhetorical.
I sought in my testimony today to state facts. In my testimony, I came to the conclusion—and throughout the four months—that there was a sustained effort, an attempt to politically interfere with my discretion as the Attorney General of Canada. It was inappropriate.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
On January 11, you said—the Friday before the cabinet shuffle—your former deputy minister was called by the Clerk and told that the shuffle was happening, and that the deputy minister said that one of the first conversations that the new minister will be expected to have with the Prime Minister would be on SNC-Lavalin.
It appears, to a reasonable person looking at that, that you were removed from your role because you would not change your mind, despite these persistent and consistent efforts to have you do so, and that because you didn't change your mind, you were fired from the role of Attorney General. That's what I take from the material. In other words, there appears to be a direct link from that conversation the day before the cabinet shuffle and what occurred: your removal from your role as Attorney General. That would appear to be what was said.
Now, I have a question. After what you called “consistent and sustained” pressure to reverse your decision, I'd like you to tell us a little bit more about why you did not change your mind.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I did not change my mind to enter into or to issue a directive to the director of public prosecutions on the matter of putting out an invitation to negotiate a remediation agreement with SNC because I had the benefit of reading the section 13 note and of conducting my own due diligence around the appropriateness of entering into a deferred prosecution agreement with SNC, and I had the benefit of feedback and briefings from my departmental officials as well as my political staff.
I made my mind up prior to the September 17 meeting. For those people who know me, my decision-making process takes into account many views, and I welcome many views on public policy issues. Having taken into account many diverse views and knowing confidently my role, my independent role as the Attorney General, and the need to make a decision.... I know that you are studying the Shawcross principles, and I don't want to get into talking about the Shawcross principles, but as the Attorney General you make decisions with your judicial hat on, leaving aside political considerations or otherwise.
I had determined that I was not going to issue a directive. It was inappropriate to interfere with the discretion of the director of public prosecutions, and having made up my mind, taking into account all of the information, again, for those who know me, I was not going to change my mind.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Following up on some of those timeline questions, it looks like in the response that you didn't meet again with Gerry until December 5 in terms of raising your specific concern that you felt this was interference. Given how long you've known Mr. Butts—I believe it's been widely reported that he was someone who recruited you to run for the Liberal Party, so you had known each other even prior to politics—I'm just curious if it's fair to say that it wasn't until the December 5 meeting with Mr. Butts...that you hadn't messaged him about your concerns about what you described as constant pressure, and if you had communicated with him in any way, via text, email, whatnot, prior to that December 5 meeting to say that you felt these conversations needed to stop....
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Well, I'm not going to comment on the nature of my relationship with Mr. Butts—
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
—but I will say that it was the Prime Minister, the then leader, who recruited me into the party. Of course, there were ongoing conversations between him and Mr. Butts—
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Can I just say, then, is it fair to suggest, though, that you had known him and you were comfortable with him? You had talked to him, I would assume, regularly—
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Yes, of course. I had fairly regular conversations with Gerry. In fact, Gerry said to me many times—and I don't think this is a secret—“I talk to you more than I talk to most ministers”. I appreciated that relationship.
To the second part of your question, as I said, there were sustained efforts at communications, not only with me but with my office, from various members of the Prime Minister's Office, including Mathieu Bouchard and Elder Marques, both of whom are policy advisers and legal advisers to the Prime Minister, as well as Gerry Butts and Katie Telford. It would have been, in my view, not a secret that these were concerns that I had.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Just following up on that, if it wasn't a secret that those were your concerns, why not until December 5 did you communicate with Mr. Butts specifically about those communications? It was somewhat stated that you or someone in your office would look at the matter back in September, so if it was constant, and you acknowledge that you spoke to Mr. Butts on a regular basis, why not raise it earlier in September or October about those ongoing conversations with anyone in the PMO or other ministers' offices? Or did you? I guess that's a fair point. Did you communicate prior to that about those concerns with Mr. Butts?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I appreciate the question and being able to clarify again the timeline. I absolutely communicated in September, not to Gerry Butts but to the Prime Minister of the country, the concern that I had. I communicated to the Clerk of the Privy Council, the deputy minister to the Prime Minister. I communicated to Elder Marques and to Mathieu Bouchard. I communicated to the Deputy Minister of Justice and the Deputy Attorney General of Canada. When the sustained efforts of political interference continued, I felt—and I have text messages of when I requested the meeting with Gerry that ultimately resulted on December 5—that it was time to reiterate my concerns to him about the inappropriate nature of these conversations, as I did to Minister Morneau in October or September, I believe—I might be getting the dates wrong—about the inappropriateness and that this had to stop.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
You didn't mention Ms. Telford. So is it fair to say you didn't speak with Ms. Telford between those September dates? Did you ever mention it to Ms. Telford or have communications via text, emails or writings about what you say was continued pressure?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Just to correct, it was September 19 that I had the discussion with Minister Morneau.
To your question, in most of the conversations that I had with the Prime Minister's Office at the highest level, either Katie or Jerry would be with Gerry Butts.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
To be clear, however, my chief of staff had direct conversations with Mr. Butts and Ms. Telford, as I described in detail on December 18.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
After September 19, that meeting with the Prime Minister, did you speak to him again about the continued pressure you felt?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
The meeting I had with the Prime Minister was on September 17. And after September 17, I did not directly talk to the Prime Minister until January 7, but in between those dates, there were, as I described, numerous meetings with the Prime Minister's Office senior staff as well as the Clerk of the Privy Council.
