Justice Committee on Feb. 27th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much, Ms. Wilson-Raybould, for sharing your perspective with the committee. It's much appreciated.

Folks, I'm going to lay out the rules for the questions. I'm usually a very flexible chair in terms of time, but as we've done for the meetings on this issue, we're going to stick to the time limits. As a result, I would ask the witness, when somebody's asking for a quick answer, to be a little bit succinct, but I, obviously, want her to be able to finish her answers.

The first round is six minutes Conservative, six Liberal, six NDP, six Liberal, and I will let everybody know in advance of every round what the time limits are.

We will start with Ms. Raitt.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Thank you very much, Ms. Wilson-Raybould. I appreciate your patience on getting here today. It hasn't been an easy path, but I know that Canadians really appreciate it, and they appreciate your testimony today.

I want to start off by saying I believe every word you said today. I appreciate your honour, and I appreciate your honesty, and I appreciate your integrity and grit in coming forward in the way you have.

I do have some questions, though, and I would be grateful for your input and your point of view.

First and foremost, the Prime Minister has said that you will be able to discuss all relevant information, but do you believe there is relevant information that you were unable to include in your 30-minute statement that would be helpful for the committee?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

As I said in my letter to the committee yesterday, and as I said in my remarks today, the order in council and the waiver of privilege and confidentiality extend to January 14, when I was sworn in as the Minister of Veterans Affairs, so they do not include any conversations that occurred thereafter. They do not include conversations that I may or may not have had with the Prime Minister, and they do not include the conversation I had with my former cabinet colleagues after my resignation from cabinet.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Do you think those would be relevant to our considerations?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Having heard some of the deliberations and the questions asked by the committee over the course of the meetings you have had, I believe some of the questions would be answered if that information were made available.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

One of the important pieces of your testimony today was the names you provided for us, giving us a different list of characters who have been involved in this situation since it began in September.

I'm wondering if you would be so kind as to provide us with a full list of those names. I've jotted down a few of them, but I don't have the complete listing. Would that be something you would be willing to do for us?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I believe the full list of names is contained within the remarks, which I think are being distributed, but if I counted incorrectly, I will provide all of the names.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

I appreciate it. On page 14, you mention that there were various officials who came forward at the time. If you have any recollection of who the various officials were, that would be helpful for us in terms of making sure we have a complete list of all the witnesses.

You pointed out to us that on January 7 you were told that you were being removed as the Attorney General. As well, you posted a very lengthy Facebook post after your movement to being Minister of Veterans Affairs. I would assume you thought a lot about what you would include in a note like that during the time when you were actually Attorney General. Therefore, I think and I believe that the statement you made, even though technically it was made when you were Minister of Veterans Affairs, did come to light and was part of your thought process when you were Attorney General.

I want to ask you a couple of questions about your Facebook post. I will quote the first one, and you mention it in your remarks, “It has always been my view that the Attorney General of Canada must be non-partisan, more transparent...and, in this respect, always willing to speak truth to power.”

Do you believe, for the record, that you were removed as the Attorney General because you spoke truth to power on the topic of the SNC ongoing prosecution?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I am going to have to be very careful what I say.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

I understand.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I believe I am able to speak to my thought processes from January 7 up to the time I was sworn in as the Veterans Affairs minister.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Yes.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I think it's apparent, from my remarks, that I was concerned that I was being shuffled out of the role of Minister of Justice and Attorney General possibly because of a decision I would not take on SNC and the DPA. I raised those concerns with the Prime Minister and with Gerry Butts. Also, as I said in my remarks, they denied that. I cannot speak to anything that I thought about after that point.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

I appreciate that.

In the second part of this letter, you say that, “The unique and independent aspects of the dual role of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada are even more important. I know Canadians across the country expect such high standards to continue to be met—especially in the uncertain times in which we now live—and I expect this to continue.”

I'd like to know if you are concerned that it's possible that the independence of the Office of the Attorney General is being eroded now, given what you told us in your testimony today and your understanding that the current Attorney General was to be briefed on the SNC-Lavalin deferment decision.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I will not comment on the current Attorney General, but I will comment on my time as the Attorney General and the thoughts I had when I was on vacation in Bali and when I received a call from the Prime Minister.

While I was the Attorney General through these four months, leaving aside all of the very inappropriate political pressure and interference, I was confident, in my role as the Attorney General, that I was the final decision-maker on whether or not a directive would be introduced on the SNC matter. So I knew that as long as I was the Attorney General, this would not occur.

I had concerns that when I was removed as the Attorney General, this potentially might not be the case. I decided that I would embrace this new role, a very important role, and I really want to say publicly that the role at Veterans Affairs is an incredibly important role, and I took it very seriously.

I had decided to take on the role requested of me by the Prime Minister, but I had concerns, and I knew that in my new role, still sitting around the cabinet table, if a directive had been placed into the Gazette, I would have resigned immediately from cabinet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Ms. O'Connell.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here today and for providing your notes. I think they're helpful.

With my set of questions, I want to get a general sense of the timeline. I know you've laid it out here, but I've just been trying to keep up a little bit.

On or around—and if I have the wrong date, please correct me—September 17, I think, you first had a meeting with the Prime Minister, the purpose of which wasn't at first SNC-Lavalin, although it was brought up. Was it at that point that you felt uncomfortable regarding your role in this matter, or would you say you were uncomfortable beginning with the initial feedback you heard about your chief of staff having been contacted by Mr. Chin?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

There are a couple of questions in there, so if I don't answer them, please let me know.

I requested the September 17 meeting, as I said, on a different...on an important matter. As I said, the Prime Minister brought up SNC and the deferred prosecution agreement. With the Clerk present, we had conversations about SNC. He brought up SNC, jobs and the potential of job loss. I will say that they were entirely appropriate conversations for the Prime Minister to bring up.

What I will say is that the conversations turned to be completely inappropriate when there was discussion about the Quebec election and about the fact that the Prime Minister was a member of Parliament in Quebec. It was at that point that I immediately became concerned, and because I was the Attorney General sought to have a conversation with the Prime Minister about the law, about the role of the Attorney General and the necessary independence that the Attorney General must have in exercising their discretion, in this case around a prosecution.

The political concerns that were raised prompted me to ask the question of the Prime Minister directly if he was politically interfering with my role as the Attorney General, so at that point my senses were heightened. The Prime Minister assured me that was not the case, but soon thereafter I instructed my staff to ensure—myself as well—that we had a very detailed chronology of all meetings and conversations about SNC and deferred prosecution agreements.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you.

You wouldn't say that it was a red flag, necessarily, on the topic or the conversations with Mr. Chin on September 7, because it was those conversations about businesses.... It was once the conversation, in your mind, changed to any politics. Or were you equally concerned on September 7?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

On the earlier meetings, prior to the meeting with the Prime Minister, Ben Chin had conversations with my chief of staff. Again, in terms of public policy and in terms of having discussions about impacts of decisions and loss of jobs, that was appropriate.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Okay.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

But I will say that in those calls—I don't have my notes in front of me, but I have a pretty generous memory—Mr. Chin raised the Quebec election. I will say that it's okay to talk about job losses, and it's okay to talk about it in initial conversations, but when those topics continue to be brought up after there's a clear awareness that a decision has been made, it becomes inappropriate.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you for clarifying.

I'm sorry. I just want to clarify on that point, because you mentioned that you have notes and a pretty good memory. In the written submission or your verbal remarks, any conversations—at least from September 7, 8 and 11—at least those involving Mr. Chin, were with your staff, not with you directly. Did you leave out conversations that you also had or was it just notes that you had from your conversations with somebody who had a conversation with Mr. Chin? I just want to clarify, because you mentioned it.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Yes, sure I'm happy to answer the question if you'd permit me just to speak about how at least my minister's office works. I have an incredibly close relationship, necessarily so, with my chief of staff. I also at that time had a very close relationship with my judicial affairs adviser, who throughout some of this period of time was acting as my chief of staff given that we were out of the country.

Whenever my chief of staff has a conversation, she takes notes on the conversation and immediately relays the conversation to me, particularly in cases where there are concerns about the conversations that were had. The necessary closeness of the relationship makes it such that she and I are sharing important information and proceeding on the same basis with respect to the meetings and to the telephone calls and emails that she would receive. It is her obligation—and my instructions for her—to provide me with all of these details.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you.