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.
As an Individual
I think I explained at length, Mr. Angus, what I think happened.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
But I'm not getting an answer here. You may have explained it—
NDP
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Mr. Angus, please let the witness finish his answer, and then we'll come back to you.
Finish the answer, Mr. Butts.
As an Individual
I am not here to call anybody names, and you will not get me to cast aspersions—
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I'm not asking you to call someone names; I'm asking whether there was interference, because facts, my friend, as you said—
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
—facts are very stubborn. It's not just her. Ms Philpott said, “I have lost confidence.... I must abide by my...ethical...and constitutional obligations” because of the allegations of interference by your office. “There can be a cost to acting on one's principles, but there is a bigger cost to abandoning them.”
Is Ms. Philpott not understanding this either?
As an Individual
I would certainly agree with the last statement, the statement that there is a cost to abiding by one's principles, as there are costs to abandoning them.
As an Individual
I think that in this case, as I detailed at length, there is more than one way of looking at it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much. That ends the second round.
I would just note that the witness did not refuse to be sworn in; the committee voted against swearing him in, as we have voted against swearing in any other witness in these meetings.
Now we're at the third round. The third round is six minutes to the Conservatives, six to the Liberals, six to the NDP, six to the Liberals. Then we have agreed that at the end of this round, the three representatives of political parties not recognized in the House of Commons—because you need 12 seats—will be allowed to ask three minutes of questions each.
We will start with the Conservatives.
Go ahead, Monsieur Berthold.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Butts, you clearly stated in your testimony that neither Ms. Wilson-Raybould's departure from the Department of Justice nor the Hon. David Lametti's arrival there had anything to do with SNC-Lavalin.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask the witness why the Government of Quebec was informed several times, including here in Gatineau in late January, some 15 days after the shuffle, that the SNC-Lavalin matter was resolved and that there would be a remediation agreement, that a deal had been reached.
How could the Government of Quebec believe that an agreement was a done deal if all you wanted, when you communicated repeatedly with the former Minister of Justice and the Attorney General, was to press her to get an outside opinion? How could you suggest to another level of government that the remediation agreement was a done deal when all you wanted was to get a legal opinion to enable the Attorney General or the new Attorney General to make the right decision? That's simply inconsistent with your testimony. The idea of suggesting to another government that there would be an agreement, a remediation agreement, because there had been a cabinet shuffle and we now had a new minister is inconsistent with what you've been saying from the outset.
As an Individual
I'm not aware of the situation you're describing. I'm not aware of any communications between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec on this issue, certainly not in the time frame you're talking about—well, that's not true. I'm aware of the fact that the current Premier of Quebec raised it personally with the Prime Minister, as did the former premier of Quebec. I'm certainly not aware of what you're talking about.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Then you're not aware of any communications that might have taken place between cabinet members, members of your office and people from the Government of Quebec, indicating that SNC-Lavalin's remediation agreement was a done deal as a result of a cabinet shuffle.