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 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Okay.
My next question is about the fact that you mentioned the appropriateness or inappropriateness and where the line has kind of been drawn. You've indicated that when talking about jobs, the Prime Minister, or the member for Papineau, was in a completely appropriate space but you said that when he spoke about the headquarters moving out of Montreal, that was inappropriate. Is that correct?
5 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
No, I didn't say that. I said that where—and I didn't say alarm bells, but—my alarm bells went off was when the Clerk of the Privy Council talked about the fact that there was a board meeting for SNC coming up on Thursday, September 20 and that there was an election in Quebec. Then the Prime Minister interjected and said, “I'm an MP in Quebec—the member for Papineau.” That was entirely political and entirely inappropriate, which gave rise to the question I asked the Prime Minister.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
You mentioned, in some of your answers to the questions, that he mentioned that he was the member for Papineau, that he was talking about the election, and that he said that if we didn't find a solution, the company might move from Montreal.
In my view, when a company picks up and moves from a city or from a country, that means job losses. Is that not correct?
5 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
That's your view.
Of course I was aware of the potential for job losses.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
That is a legitimate conversation for a Prime Minister to have.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Again, at the time, I didn't see it as being entirely inappropriate. Of course ministers of the crown can approach the Attorney General and raise public policy concerns about decisions the Attorney General will make. Where it became inappropriate was the sustained discussions after I had made my decision, and made my decision known.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Okay.
On September 19, you had met with the Clerk and you had met with Minister Morneau in the House. In your discussion with Minister Morneau, I believe you had said that it's inappropriate and he should stop talking about it when he had talked about saving jobs, but in your discussion with the Clerk on that same day, you have offered that if SNC-Lavalin were to send a letter to you expressing their concerns and their public interest arguments, you were open to looking at that letter. Is that correct?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
If you allow me to answer, I can clarify where that part wasn't correct.
I had discussion with the Clerk of the Privy Council, recognizing the conversation that I had with the Prime Minister just the day before, where he asked for solutions, recognizing I had already made my decision. I had indicated to the Clerk of the Privy Council that if SNC were to send a letter to me, as the Attorney General, expressing their concerns—their national interest concerns and their public interest concerns—if I were to have received a letter, I would have immediately forwarded it on to the director of public prosecutions. I would not have looked at it because it is entirely within the purview of the director of public prosecutions. Any involvement I would have in that letter would be inappropriate. What I said was that I would immediately forward it on to the director, and not consider the letter.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
Thank you very much.
Ms. Wilson-Raybould, when you speak to Gerry Butts or Katie Telford or the Clerk of the Privy Council, do you believe they are speaking with the full authority of the Prime Minister in their discussions with you?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
I have some specific questions, if I may.
Do you believe the Prime Minister or anyone in the Prime Minister's Office had any lawful authority to tell you to direct the director of public prosecutions on what to do?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
No, I was the final, and as.... The Attorney General is the final decision-maker on whether or not, as the top prosecutor, to do anything with respect to a specific prosecution.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
Yes. Is it fair to say—given your testimony and everything you've told us—that you suffered from repeated communications with you, either directly or indirectly, with the intent of changing your mind? It was repeated communications, directly or indirectly.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
Okay.
I'm wondering as well, given the number of times in the final part of your statement.... Mr. Butts indicated to you in your conversation that you needed to find a solution to the issue. In the statement that you received in the text from your chief of staff, there are details about not wanting “to debate legalities anymore” and there's “no solution” that doesn't come from “some interference”. The Clerk indicated that he thought that he—meaning the Prime Minister—is going to “find a way to get it done, one way or another”. You reference, as well, that it's “the Prime Minister's prerogative to do what he wants”. You said you were “having thoughts of the Saturday night massacre”. The Clerk said he was “worried about a collision” between you and the Prime Minister. You mentioned a few minutes ago that you thought they were “veiled threats”.
This all seems to me, if I may, that there was an intention—from all of these comments and this continued pressure—to make you fear for your job and that at the end of the day there would be a shuffle or that you would be removed from your position. Is that a fair assumption that I'm making?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I'm not going to speak to the intention of other individuals.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I will speak to the very heightened level of anxiety that I had, which increased and culminated in my discussion with the Clerk on December 19. I remember distinctly ending that conversation with the Clerk by saying, “I am waiting for the other shoe to drop.” I believe that reflection or my comments can speak for themselves.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
I'm not trying to split a hair here, and I apologize if you take it that way—you can give me the same answer as you did on intention—but do you think that the purpose of those comments was to cause you to have a second look at the issue because you were worried about whether or not you'd remain in cabinet?
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
