Justice Committee on March 6th, 2019

[Gerald Butts]

Yes, I believe that still to be the case. My understanding from the briefings I got at the time was that intervention would still be possible until a verdict was rendered.

I think it's important to note, in terms of the concept of remediation agreements, where this came from it in the first place. We hear a lot about competitiveness around here, and this was an attempt to harmonize Canada's economic policy with many competing jurisdictions that already had this instrument at their disposal.

There was a rigorous debate on this topic—as there always was on most topics—and there were people on both sides of the policy, but at the end of the day it was the collective decision of cabinet that the policy was worth pursuing in the economic best interest of the country.

If I could say one more thing about DPAs, it is that I think they have been badly mis-characterized as “get out of jail free” cards. A DPA is really a court-approved reform process for a company that has committed very serious acts. Its purpose—and this is really important—is to protect people who have nothing to do with those acts from being harmed by the law.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

I have one final question...

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Plamondon, you're unfortunately at four and a half minutes. I'm sorry.

Thank you very much.

We're going to go to Mr. Weir.

Mr. Weir, by the way, I did check, and it it true that your question at our last meeting was the first CCF question at a committee meeting in 60 years in the Canadian Parliament, so it was quite historic.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Well, thank you for the opportunity, once again.

Thank you, Mr. Butts, for your articulate and informative testimony.

To pick up on what you were just saying about deferred prosecution agreements, we heard last week from Ms. Wilson-Raybould that it was clear under the law that SNC-Lavalin was not eligible for a deferred prosecution agreement, and that therefore efforts to push that option were inappropriate.

I think it's clear that you and many other people believed that SNC-Lavalin potentially was eligible for a deferred prosecution agreement. I appreciate that you're not a lawyer, and I am not either, but I wonder if you can shed any further light on the company's eligibility for that type of remedy.

[Gerald Butts]

I could not shed any light on that legal matter, Mr. Weir, I'm afraid.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Okay.

It seems quite central to whatever misunderstanding or disagreement—

[Gerald Butts]

Well, the centrality of it, though, with respect—and I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you there—is that the law is really unclear because it was brand new, and in this circumstance my understanding, as I said in my opening statement, is that this is the first case in which the law could be applied.

I think talking about these things as if they were matters of settled law, again with the proviso that I am not a lawyer, is a bit of a mis-characterization of the state of the policy, which is really fresh and has never been applied.

We thought that the more thought and advice and process that could go into this and the more transparency we could bring into the decision-making process, the better off we all were going to be, going forward. We were ploughing new field here and we wanted to make sure that all of the lessons were learned and all of the wisdom was gathered and all of the advice was given.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Thanks for all the light you've shed on the cabinet shuffle in January.

With the benefit of hindsight, do you think that it was a mistake to move Ms. Wilson-Raybould?

[Gerald Butts]

I don't like to do retrospective recharacterizations of events. I think the government was put in a very difficult position, and I think that the Prime Minister in particular was put in a very difficult position.

I think there was no malice toward anybody, and there certainly wasn't personal malice toward anybody.

The Prime Minister made, I think, a well-informed decision about the cabinet shuffle, and had everybody on the team done what the Prime Minister asked of them, then I think we would not be having this conversation today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Rankin, would you be okay if we excused the witness before we move to the motion?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Okay.

Mr. Butts—

[Gerald Butts]

Mr. Chair, I just want to say before I leave that it was a real honour to be here. I appreciate very much the work that you do, in all parties, and I hope that my evidence has contributed to a real public policy discussion.

I thank you all for your time and friendship. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

In return, I want to thank you very much. I think your testimony was very helpful. Hearing your perspective was very helpful to our work, so thank you very much, Mr. Butts.

I am just going to suspend for one minute so everyone can shake Mr. Butts' hand, and then we'll resume.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Colleagues, could I ask everyone to take their seats again?

Mr. Rankin has a motion.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

My motion is simple. I also have three reasons in justification for it that I'd also like to give.

First of all, the motion goes like this: that the justice committee recall the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould to testify at her earliest convenience.

I have three reasons in support of that, Mr. Chair.

First of all is that the Liberals voted down our efforts to obtain access to relevant emails and documents earlier today.

The second reason is that she interpreted, correctly or incorrectly, the order in council allowing her to testify to not allow her to testify to events after her removal as Attorney General on January 14, 2018.

The third and perhaps most important reason for my motion to recall her is that there is a stark contradiction in testimony, which all Canadians can appreciate today. We've said that facts are stubborn things. Well, for the record, I believe Jody Wilson-Raybould and I think we do need to get to the bottom of this for Canadians.

For those three reasons, I think it's imperative that we go on the record now and invite her back at her earliest convenience.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rankin.

Colleagues, who else wishes to speak to it? I see Mr. Fraser and Ms. Raitt.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate what Mr. Rankin is saying, as usual, but I want to make a couple of points.

First of all, when Ms. Wilson-Raybould was before our committee, I note that an invitation to table the documents she was referencing specifically in her testimony was extended, and she said she would take that under advisement.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

No, it was Mr. Butts, Chair.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

No. I'm referring to what Ms. Wilson-Raybould indicated to us at committee at that time, about documents she had referenced in her testimony.

With regard to additional witnesses, there will be witnesses this afternoon, obviously, whose testimony will be important.

We have, in the motion for today's meeting, established that the next meeting we have as a committee will be to discuss next steps and to determine subsequent procedures for our committee. I believe it would be appropriate to do it in that fashion: hear from the witnesses this afternoon, and then meet again in order to discuss and reflect on all the testimony and discuss next steps. I won't be supporting the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you.

Mr. Cooper is next, and then Ms. Raitt.

[Michael Cooper]

Ms. Raitt can go.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm going to support the motion, and I'm going to tell you why.

I'm very troubled by Mr. Butts's testimony in response to questions about whether or not PMO staff took actions that Jody Wilson-Raybould indicated to us that they had taken. He said he couldn't imagine that any of the players—Mr. Marques or Mr. Bouchard or the Clerk, Mr. Wernick—would do these things, and that he found it highly improbable.

If that is the case, then he is saying that Jody Wilson-Raybould did not tell this committee the truth, and she needs to be cross-examined on that fact. If the testimony of this witness is that she was incorrect, then we need to bring her back and ensure that we have the right facts for the Canadian public, because at this point we don't. We have two opposing stories that are dependent upon the credibility....

I'm going to keep my mind open and I'd like to hear back from her, because this witness was very clear that he couldn't imagine, given the character of the individuals, that they would ever take the serious actions Jody Wilson-Raybould has accused them of.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Cooper is next.

[Michael Cooper]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would really just reiterate the point that in light of Mr. Butts's testimony on several points, there is a direct contradiction with the testimony of Ms. Wilson-Raybould.

I have to say that I was a bit struck that in some instances Mr. Butts had a very detailed recollection of events, and then on other matters he seemed to be rather fuzzy. It seemed to me to be a bit selective. It seems to me to be nearly impossible that Mr. Butts could not recall the fact that—according to Jody Wilson-Raybould—on December 5:

Towards the end of our meeting, which was in the Château Laurier, I raised how I needed everybody to stop talking to me about SNC, as I had made up my mind and the engagements were inappropriate.

Mr. Butts said he couldn't recall if he was briefed by the Prime Minister or the Clerk of the Privy Council, but in any event he was briefed after the September 17 meeting, about which Jody Wilson-Raybould testified as follows before our committee:

I was quite taken aback. My response—and I vividly remember this as well—was to ask the Prime Minister a direct question, while looking him in the eye. I asked, “Are you politically interfering with my role/my decision as the Attorney General? I would strongly advise against it.”

Again, it's a bit difficult to imagine that if this had in fact happened, that issue would not have been brought to Mr. Butts's attention. Therefore, I think that out of fairness and in the name of getting to the truth, whatever that truth is, it is absolutely essential that Ms. Wilson-Raybould be able to come back, address those issues and be cross-examined. She should be able to speak to the matters that she clearly and repeatedly has said are relevant—namely, to events during the time after she had been removed as Attorney General but remained the Minister of Veterans Affairs, including communications she had leading up to her being removed, communications she had immediately following her removal, and her presentation to cabinet following her resignation from cabinet.