Evidence of meeting #137 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 meeting.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Ms. Raitt, do you wish to speak to your motion, or do you want me to pass it to the next person?
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
We can pass to the next person. I think it's evident and clear why we would like to have paper copies of what has been disclosed.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
11:40 a.m.
As an Individual
Can I say one thing to Ms. Raitt that may be helpful, Mr. Chair?
11:40 a.m.
As an Individual
What I can tell you is that all of the information I have at my disposal that involves direct correspondence with the former minister about that December 5 meeting I read entirely into the record. There is nothing that I have not—actually, that's not true. There is one thing, and it's a small personal thing. It is that Ms. Wilson-Raybould was going to meet someone after our dinner. She disclosed that to me, and I'm not sure it's appropriate for me to do that. However, the entirety of the text I have about the December 5 meeting with Minister Wilson-Raybould is quoted in my long statement.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Chair, based on what Mr. Butts has just said and based on where we ended up in the testimony with Ms. Wilson-Raybould, I will be voting against Ms. Raitt's motion. Mr. Butts has indicated that he has read the text into the record, and I think that is appropriate for the purposes of this study.
11:40 a.m.
Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC
I request a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Certainly, Mr. Barrett.
Before we do that, I just want to make sure there is nobody else who has their hand up.
Go ahead, Ms. Raitt.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
I just want to say something.
The intent and purpose of ensuring that we capture any text and emails between the witness and the Prime Minister's Office staff is that right now there is chronology of two members of the PMO, according to Jody Wilson-Raybould, being very inappropriate in the way in which they approached her office as the Attorney General. The witness has indicated that he has no knowledge of it, but that he believes with their sterling reputation, they would not engage.
He is their boss. I would like to see whether there are any texts associated with their reporting to him or his giving them direction. I think that is an absolutely reasonable request to be made.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much, Ms. Raitt.
Are there any other interventions?
Not seeing any, Mr. Barrett has requested a recorded vote.
Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.
11:40 a.m.
The Clerk
If I may, may I request you to verify with the committee if there is an invitation...?
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
All right, this motion is an order for production, I believe. It is not an invitation to produce, right?
Ms. Raitt, I'll look to you, but I believe what you intend is that these be produced.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Okay.
So that everybody understands, this would be an order to produce these various documents from the listed individuals as related to the SNC-Lavalin prosecution.
(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Rankin, it is your time. You have three minutes on this round.
March 6th, 2019 / 11:40 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
The question that's been put forward to us by the evidence of Ms. Wilson-Raybould is a concerted campaign of interference in the independence of the Public Prosecution Service by your office. That's the question before us. Her testimony provides us a picture. We have Mr. Marques and Mr. Bouchard wanting an informal reach-out to the prosecutor to go around her. She said that this would be political interference.
Ben Chin says it's about the Quebec election, which would be a completely inappropriate thing for someone from your office to say. Bill Morneau, after being lobbied, pushed her, and she told him to back off.
The Clerk of the Privy Council had numerous conversations, in one of which she said she was threatened three times, including when he said that you don't want to be on the wrong side of this prime minister.
The Prime Minister said, according to her testimony, that he wanted action because he was the MP for Papineau.
Katie Telford, according to Ms. Wilson-Raybould, said she wasn't interested in legalities, and she has you on the record as saying that you don't like the law because it's a Harper law, and then, further, that we don't get through this without intervention.
How can you then tell us this was he-said-she-said, and not a concerted campaign that you were involved in to intervene and override the decisions being taken by the Attorney General of Canada?
11:45 a.m.
As an Individual
I think I detailed the reasons that I don't think that was the case.
I was present in the office for the time period described, and absolutely no effort to intervene in the independence of justice occurred, but—
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
But you said to Jess Prince that we don't get through this without some interference.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
When Ms. Wilson-Raybould testified, she was very believable to Canadians. You did not agree to go under oath, so the question is, is she wrong? Did she make that up?
