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.
7 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm not actually addressing you, Mr. Boissonnault. I'm talking to the chair.
7 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
When a witness is asked a specific question and then the question is reframed but it's essentially the same question.... The witness has already said this is sub judice.
We're now three and a half hours into this meeting. It seems strange to me that an argument that has been used often to prevent witnesses from testifying at this committee, sub judice, the argument, is now being offered up by the witness in front of us and is not being accepted. The questioning continues.
Oftentimes, as you know, Chair, when a witness says they are unwilling or unable to answer a question, we as committee members simply accept it at that.
7 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
There are a couple of things. I don't recall any witness having refused this committee, in three and a half years, on the sub judice rule, so that is not correct.
With respect to Mr. Boissonnault's question, he's attempting to rephrase the question in a different way. I will alert everybody again that Ms. Wilson-Raybould made the point that the sub judice rule applies to specific questions with respect to SNC-Lavalin. We do not want to have an impact on the appeal of SNC-Lavalin, on their question regarding the remediation agreement, and therefore her specific interactions with the director of public prosecutions and others within the Department of Justice would not necessarily be....
The committee can do what it wants. It's the master of its own domain. Everybody can ask those questions. That's a restraint that we choose to put on ourselves. There's nothing either that is unfair in his trying to rephrase his question—I'd encourage him to do it in a different way—or alternatively in the witness refusing to answer the question on that basis.
That's where I think we should go. We have three and a half more minutes on Mr. Boissonnault's questions.
Mr. Boissonnault.
7 p.m.
Liberal
7 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Ms. Wilson-Raybould, if you think he got his question finished, you're more than welcome to answer it.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I will say what I was going to say prior to the discussion of committee members.
Mr. Boissonnault, I am not trying to be evasive. I take incredibly seriously my responsibilities as a member of Parliament.
To have conversations about what I did and didn't do around due diligence with respect to a section 13 notice.... I think, with respect, the committee should realize that at the time I was the Attorney General of the country, which makes me different from anybody else with respect to that circumstance. It would be very inappropriate for me, with respect, to go into any of these discussions.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
I appreciate that. I appreciate the answer.
My question to you is this: Once you made your final decision—and you mentioned that in your testimony—would you say, then, that your mind was closed to new information in a new context?
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I had made my decision where to not interfere with the decision and the discretion of the director of public prosecutions. I was made aware, as the Attorney General, about general interest prosecutions by way of section 13 notices from the director of public prosecutions. I had made my decision on this particular matter.
That is not to say that the prosecutor, in this or any other case, does not continue to work on the case, to take in new information, and to have discussions with whomever they deem appropriate throughout the course and the evolution of a prosecution, up to and including a potential trial.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you.
Can you tell us where you memorialized your decision to not proceed with a deferred prosecution agreement in this matter?
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Where you made a memo or indicated, “Today's the day. We're done. My decision is final.”
Where would you have recorded that?
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
This is not a direct answer to your question, but I take copious notes every single day.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I am faced with many section 13 notices, or was when I was the Attorney General.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
A question for you then is, did the Prime Minister, the Clerk or the PMO ever direct you to enter into a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin?
7:05 p.m.
St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC
Thank you again, Ms. Wilson-Raybould.
A number of members opposite have repeatedly raised the spectre of these conversations as somehow being in relation to the public interest and therefore somehow appropriate.
There are factors such as a Quebec election; finding a solution for SNC, as the Prime Minister stated when you met with him on September 17; the fact that the Prime Minister is a member of Parliament from Montreal; the fact that SNC-Lavalin's counsel is not a shrinking violet; and, as the Clerk of the Privy Council informed you on December 19, “I think he is going to find a way to get it done, one way or another. So he is in that kind of mood, and I wanted you to be aware of it.”
Are any of those appropriate considerations in exercising your prosecutorial discretion with respect to public interest?
7:05 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
We've been here, Mr. Chair, for several hours now. I think I'd like to move the motion rather than taking the time to do so later.
I would not use my time for anything but to make the motion at this point.