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 whether or not she made it is the subject of some debate.
I will say that if a minister—any minister, especially the Attorney General—spoke to me and said that a member of my staff or any other staff was pressuring them in an inappropriate way on any matter, I would have spoken to that staff person.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
Let's go back to the section 13 memo that was written for the Attorney General for background.
When the director of public prosecutions determines there's a matter of public interest about which she needs to inform the Attorney General, she writes a memo that is for the Attorney General's eyes only—it does not go to anybody else—and she lines out exactly why she has taken the decision and why it is important.
How often did you receive, in the Prime Minister's Office, written instruction from the Attorney General on what she did or did not do on a section 13 request from the director of public prosecutions?
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
Why would you testify that you thought she should have provided written commentary or written notice to the Prime Minister's Office?
As an Individual
I didn't say she should have provided written commentary on—
Conservative
As an Individual
—a section 13 order. I did not.
What I said was that if she had made her mind up on a matter, she would not have had to disclose the content of the order. She could simply have informed us that her mind was made up and that any attempt to open the subject with her was inappropriate, and I think a fair evaluation of the events of the fall suggests that this was not the case—that further meetings were welcomed and solicited, and advice was also welcomed.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
Your testimony is that on the occasion that the director of public prosecutions sent a note to the Attorney General indicating a matter of public interest, the Attorney General had the obligation to inform the Prime Minister's Office of a decision she took, because that's exactly what you just told us.
As an Individual
No, that's not exactly what I just told you.
What I told you was that if her mind was made up on the matter, she need not disclose anything about the content of the order. My understanding is that it would have been inappropriate if she had.
However, if there were ongoing discussions that the minister was welcoming, and in some cases soliciting, that would be inconsistent with the supposition that her mind was made up. It would also be inconsistent with our understanding of the law and the way we were briefed on how the law operates, because no verdict had been rendered in the case and it was possible that new information could come to light. In fact, not only was it possible; it happened in this case, when the DPP rendered fresh judgment on October 9.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Your time on questions has expired. Do you want to move the motion now?
We have a copy by email, but I don't know if there's a copy that members could get. Did anybody write it down on a paper or anything that could be distributed to members?
We will read it into the record. It's not that long. Maybe people can do without a written document.
Ms. Raitt, go ahead.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
I don't have it in front of me right now, Mr. Chair. Would you read it for me? That would be excellent.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
The motion that we have from Ms. Raitt, colleagues, is this: “That the witness produce all communications, texts, emails, written notes between himself and the former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould, Mathieu Bouchard, Elder Marques, Katie Telford, David Lametti, Jessica Prince, Ben Chin, Bill Morneau and Justin Trudeau.”
Is that correct, Ms. Raitt, as your motion?
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
I'm going to take your word on it. Yes. It sounds right. Those are all the players.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
May I as chair make a comment?
That motion in itself would be beyond the scope of what we're doing. I think you mean to add in at the end the words “related to the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin”, because those would be the terms of reference. Okay? Then it would be receivable.
I also want to clarify something with the witness. I believe that earlier, when Mr. Fraser asked if the witness could produce certain texts, there was a reason that the witness wanted to advance for not being able to do so, which is that he's no longer a part of government and he doesn't own these texts. He can't produce them.
Is that correct, Mr. Butts?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Therefore, I think the words “that the witness produce” are probably also not the right words. “That the committee ask for” perhaps might be the right words.
I leave it to you, Ms. Raitt.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
Well, the witness is indicating that he can't produce them on his own, but his counsel can certainly ask for them if he wants to. However, if you think it's more—
Look, we want to get to a result at the end of this, and the result is we would like to have copies of those items. Since the witness came forward and indicated he had these items, it would be very helpful to see these items.
I'm in your hands. If you think it's easier for us to go ahead and ask for them in a different way than through the witness, then that would be fine.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Let me check with the clerk.
The clerk is suggesting the words “that the witness” be replaced by “that the Office of the Privy Council”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
I judge the motion receivable.
I have Mr. Boissonnault, but Ms. Raitt, do you have anything further to say before I give the floor to Mr. Boissonnault?
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
I just want to make sure that we're capturing not only the texts that may come from the government-issued phone, but that if there are any texts on personal phones or personal email accounts, those are captured as well. That is not a PCO function; it's a function of the witness.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
The clerk suggests “to the measure that the government could have access to these communications” would be the right wording, or alternatively that we simply call for the production, and we don't ask anybody specifically to produce them.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I think we all understand the concept, and we will get to the right words in the event that the concept is accepted. That's basic there.
The motion is to ask for the production of these texts, emails, and communications related to SNC-Lavalin between the people mentioned, regardless of whether the device was government or personal.