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.
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
10:55 a.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Butts. Thank you for being here.
I'd like to read to you from the letter of resignation by Ms. Philpott from two days ago and ask if you agree.
She said:
Unfortunately, the evidence of efforts by politicians and/or officials to pressure the former Attorney General to intervene in the criminal case involving SNC-Lavalin, and the evidence as to the content of those efforts have raised serious concerns for me....
The solemn principles at stake are the independence and integrity of our justice system.... Sadly, I have lost confidence in how the government has dealt with this matter and in how it has responded to the issues....
Finally she said:
I must abide by my core values, my ethical responsibilities and constitutional obligations.
I take it from your summary that you are in complete disagreement with her conclusions.
10:55 a.m.
As an Individual
I certainly don't have a disagreement with her conclusion in the sense that she's lost confidence. That's res ipsa loquitur.
By the way, I should say congratulations on your retirement, Mr. Rankin. I've been an admirer of yours for many years.
Obviously, my opening statement details at length that I disagree with the former minister's perspective on this, yes.
11 a.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
All right.
Now, listen, I want to talk to you about two events. Regarding the December 5 meeting when Jody Wilson-Raybould met with you—both sought out a meeting—she testified that, “I wanted to speak about a number of things, including bringing up SNC and the barrage of people hounding me and my staff.” Do you recall her saying that?
11 a.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
You have no memory of that.
On December 18, 2018, you talked about her chief of staff, Jessica Prince, meeting with you and Katie Telford.
According to a text that was read to us by Ms. Wilson-Raybould, which I am sure you remember, she said:
Gerry said, 'Jess,
—that's Jessica—
there is no solution here that doesn't involve some interference.'
Then she said:
At least they are finally being honest about what they are asking you to do! Don't care about the PPSC's independence. Katie was like 'we don't want to debate legalities anymore....' They keep being like 'we aren't lawyers, but there has to be some solution here.'
What solution could possibly exist if it did not involve inappropriate political interference?
11 a.m.
As an Individual
Well, I think I went through that in some detail in my opening remarks, Mr. Rankin. I have a very different recollection of that meeting. I don't think I would have used the word “solution” because it's not one I would use in this context.
My basic point to Ms. Prince was that if getting advice from someone like Beverley McLachlin constitutes political interference, then it must be your position that you can't have a conversation about this file.
11 a.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
But if she rejected that, if that became clear at some point in time that her mind had been made up, would it not be reasonable for us to infer that the “barrage of... hounding”, to use her words, was happening? Because she told people at the highest level of your office that she wanted them to back off, that her decision was made up.
Whether that was a good decision or a bad one is really not for us to talk about. It's just the way in which that was communicated.
11 a.m.
As an Individual
I would make a couple of points on that, Mr. Rankin, with respect.
One is, I don't think it was possible for her to have her decision made. My sense, and as I was briefed by the professional public service at the time, was that she was obliged to bring fresh eyes every time new evidence arose, and—
11 a.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Was there any new evidence? What new evidence? We've never heard of any new evidence.
11 a.m.
As an Individual
There must have been.... I am not aware of any, but there must have been some reason for the DPP herself to [Inaudible-Editor].
11 a.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
So you would accept that if there were no new evidence it would be inappropriate to continue to push her, with her having demonstrated, as she said so clearly, that by that point in time her decision as independent Attorney General had been made up?
11 a.m.
As an Individual
No, I would not accept that. I would ask professionals for advice on it if that were in dispute.
11 a.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Because you said, I think, in your testimony that up until the verdict, it's always appropriate to talk.
11 a.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
All right, then.
My next point, Mr. Chair, is that the witness talked about a conversation with the Prime Minister concerning the removal of Ms. Wilson-Raybould from cabinet.
I point out to everyone that we don't have the ability.... She refused to talk about that, appropriately, because the waiver that was given to her by the Governor in Council did not allow her to talk about it. We only have one account of that very critical meeting.
I would ask, for the record, that we call the witness back and ask that the Governor in Council liberate her to talk about the balance of this, or we'll never know what truly happened. I just think that's obvious.
11 a.m.
As an Individual
Mr. Rankin, with respect, my understanding is not that.
My understanding is that I am covered by exactly the same waiver or liberty, whatever you want to call it, that the former minister was when she was here. The two events I am describing—the conversation the Prime Minister had with former Minister Philpott and with the former Minister Wilson-Raybould—happened successively on Sunday, January 6, and Monday, January 7. My understanding is that the waiver covers the events up until the 14th.
11 a.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Her testimony, members will recall, was that she could not tell us about those events, and now I am told that she can. Therefore, with great respect, we need to hear her account of the same event.
11 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you. Noted.
Your time is now up, Mr. Rankin.
I think it's up to every witness to determine for themselves what the order in council covers—
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I believe that she did speak to these events at the committee, but we will take under advisement your comments.
Here, I do note the witness's comment to Mr. Rankin. I think that to all of us who have served on the committee with him for the last number of years, his intelligence and integrity have always been incredibly appreciated at this committee and it will be a real loss to politics and to Ottawa and the national Parliament that you will no longer be here after the election.
Thank you.
We will now go to Mr. Boissonnault again.
Mr. Boissonnault.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Butts, ministers face a ton of political pressure. I think you alluded to that. Former solicitor general Wayne Easter indicated that “there's always pressure in government” and that “what one person sees as pressure, another may just see as...a day's work.”Minister Freeland has said she always feels that “when there are difficult issues, that if it comes to it, I should go personally to the Prime Minister to discuss them. I really think it's my duty to do that.” Are you aware of any instances in which the former attorney general raised this issue of pressure with the Prime Minister?
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Are you aware of her availing herself of any of the opportunities she could have had with the Prime Minister to raise this issue?