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.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I, of course, don't want to speak for Jessica on this about the specific question of fear.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I can say that in my conversations with her and in my text messages, but particularly in my conversations with her after that, she was quite upset after the meeting. I will say, now that I have this opportunity, and I think some people are watching, about Jessica Prince, who was my chief of staff at the Department of Justice and who came with me to Veterans Affairs, that she is an extraordinary human being and an extraordinary lawyer.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
She is incredibly well educated and very professional in everything she does. I would agree with you on that, and I think everyone will appreciate that you give kind thoughts to your chief of staff. That's always extremely nice.
I have one last thing, if I may. It's my understanding, and it was the case when we served, that chiefs of staff are hired and fired essentially by the Prime Minister's Office at the end of the day. It would be difficult for you as a minister to retain a chief of staff who was not in favour with the Prime Minister's Office. Is that true in your case?
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I'm not going to comment on the interactions between my office and the Prime Minister's Office.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Wilson-Raybould, for appearing today and sharing your viewpoints with us on this.
I've always felt that you've been a very vocal advocate on issues that you genuinely believe in, without regard to other viewpoints. You've been vocal at cabinet; you've been vocal to the Prime Minister and you've been vocal to Canadians. In fact, you've gone on the record at many public events and you've really expressed your viewpoints on issues that you genuinely believe in, such as the indigenous file.
Just going through your testimony and your chain of events, I see that there hasn't been communication between you and the Prime Minister himself from September up until the time when he called you for the shuffle.
Why is that? Why didn't you speak out to the Prime Minister when you've been so vocal on issues such as the indigenous file, and you know that you have access? Why did you not speak out to him when you had these concerns? Do you feel that you had an obligation to do so?
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I need to say a couple of things with respect to your question. I completely reject your characterization that I do not have regard for other people's opinions. You talked about the cabinet table, and with respect, you would have no ability to know about discussions around the cabinet table.
I don't apologize for being vocal in my opinions, but that doesn't mean that I don't value other people's opinions. For the entirety of my professional career and how I was raised in terms of consensus-based decision-making, it has always been incredibly important to me to take into account the views of other people. That's how we make good public policy in this country.
You talked about indigenous issues. I'm a proud indigenous person from the west coast of British Columbia, and I will not apologize for being a strong advocate in pursuing transformative change for indigenous peoples in this country. I have worked in the indigenous world as a politician for a significant amount of time and have a very in-depth understanding of the issues that indigenous peoples face. That's not to say everybody agrees—
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
—and I appreciate hearing other people's opinions.
To your question with respect to the Prime Minister, I believe I've covered that ground. I had a direct conversation with the Prime Minister, as I had direct conversations with the people in his office and the Clerk of the Privy Council.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Please excuse me, Ms. Wilson-Raybould, I was referring to your vocal advocacy as a sign of strength. As a member of Parliament and your colleague, having worked with you, I acknowledge your effectiveness in advocating for the issues that you genuinely believe in, and we appreciate that. Thank you for your service.
I want to understand something here. You mentioned political interference in respect of the Quebec election. The Quebec election was over at the beginning of October, so if you can please help Canadians understand, from October to December, what was the context of the inappropriate pressure?
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Yes, the Quebec election was something that was brought up in the September 17 meeting. There were many other inappropriate conversations and attempts at political interference that occurred after that date. An example, which I've already talked about, occurred after I had made my decision as the Attorney General, which was entirely within my discretion to make, when there were repeated attempts by people in the Prime Minister's Office to get me to hire external legal counsel to evaluate my decision. There were further conversations about the election coming up, with regard to whether, if SNC were to move, this would be detrimental to the election.
I further said, when we were talking about jobs and job losses—and I don't think there's anybody around this table who doesn't want to prevent job losses—that it was appropriate in the initial phases. However, after I had made my decision as the Attorney General not to issue a directive, the successive and sustained comments around jobs became inappropriate, because I had made my decision and everybody was fully aware that I had made my decision.
I believe where it got even more heightened was when what I described as the “veiled threats” came towards the latter part of this time frame, around December 18 and 19. There were many different occasions where the appropriateness line was crossed.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Just to clarify, Ms. Wilson-Raybould, from after the Quebec election, up until the end of December, as per what you just said, are you stating—and I'm just seeking clarity here—that it was inappropriate because you had expressed that your mind was already made up on this issue?
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
My decision not to issue a directive had occurred prior to the September 17 meeting. The Quebec election and any partisan considerations before or after are entirely inappropriate and were not relevant to me at the time, wearing my judicial hat as the Attorney General, in terms of considerations about whether or not I was going to exercise my discretion and issue a directive.
5:40 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I have just a technical question at the front end, Ms. Wilson-Raybould. I wonder if you could provide the committee with a copy of all the text messages and emails that you referred to in your testimony.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I hear the question. I'll take it under advisement.
5:40 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you.
In referring to your conversation with Mr. Wernick, the top public servant in the country, the Clerk of the Privy Council, in an answer to a question, you said something about “waiting for the other shoe to drop”. What did you mean by that?
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
As I said before in questions, this was a very tense conversation. I had a high level of anxiety. This was the culmination of many phone calls and face-to-face meetings. As for what I meant by “waiting for the other shoe to drop”, at the end of the conversation that's how we closed out our telephone call. I was under the understanding, based on what the Clerk had told me, that he was going back to talk to the Prime Minister before he left, recognizing what he had also told me: that the Prime Minister was dug in, that he was firm and that it's not a good space to have an Attorney General at loggerheads with the Prime Minister.
I had a heightened level of anxiety that I would be getting a call from the Prime Minister the next day, which the Clerk indicated might happen, and that there might be further direction or another outcome for me as Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
5:40 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
In other words, there could be consequences for you doing your job as an independent AG and saying that you had made your decision and that was it. That there could be consequences is what you inferred from that conversation.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
That is a fair assessment of how I interpreted the conversation.
5:40 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
You've told us about a lot of officials in the Prime Minister's Office and the Clerk of the Privy Council. Do you not think that Canadians.... Because we're doing our job to get to the bottom of this for Canadians, do you not think that we would have a better understanding of the situation if we heard from the officials that you've referred to?
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Well, I can't speak to whether or not you would have a better understanding. I believe that it is important to hear from as many individuals who have direct connections and interactions in this case, which is why I am...I don't know if “pleased” is the word, but I am fine to be here and having this conversation, because I know that it is important for me to put the facts before this committee for your consideration.
5:40 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you.
You said something very interesting in your remarks. I'd like to read it to you. You said, “The history of Crown-indigenous relations in this country includes a history of the rule of law not being respected.”
Did this—your history, your experience that you've referred to—inform or strengthen your resistance to any potential perversion of the rule of law?
