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.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
There's another passage on the same page that says, “Interdepartmental consultation is also important because of the shared responsibilities among government departments....”
Is it your opinion that the SNC-Lavalin file is one that would require interdepartmental consultation?
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you.
You just said to Mr. Ehsassi that the first time you had heard about her decision being final was last week.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
In her testimony, Ms. Wilson-Raybould refers to a November 22 meeting with Mr. Elder Marques and Mr. Bouchard. She said in her testimony that she took them through the Director of Public Prosecutions Act and “prosecutorial independence as a constitutional principle”, etc., and they “continued to plead their case...that we could hire an eminent person”. She said:
They were kicking the tires. I said no. My mind had been made up and they needed to stop. This was enough.
I gather that Elder Marques and Mr. Bouchard work for you.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
They work for the Prime Minister's Office, of which you are the director.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
They report to you, so they knew at least, it seems, if her account is to be believed.
She then said, “I will briefly pause” about “my...state of mind”, that the final decision had been made and so forth.
In my view, the communications and efforts to change my mind on this matter should have stopped. Various officials also urged me to take partisan political considerations into account, which it was clearly improper for me to do. We either have a system that is based on the rule of law, the independence of prosecutorial functions and respect for those charged to use their discretion and powers in a particular way, or we do not.
Therefore she said very clearly to your staff that this was to be the final decision.
Mr. Butts, what we're here to do is to determine whether a line was crossed—
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
—whether the line we must preserve between an independent Attorney General's function and appropriate considerations of relevant public policy factors was crossed. It seems clear from her testimony that subjectively she felt inappropriate pressure. Whether that's true or false or right or wrong, there's no doubt that's how she subjectively felt, but objectively, given all of the interventions, all the times she said no, the fact that there was no new evidence to be brought forward and the “hounding” that she claimed existed, how can we but conclude that the line was crossed?
As an Individual
Well, I think that 20 points of contact over four months are not a lot of contact, Mr. Rankin, and I think that if she felt at the time that the line had been crossed, then she should have been...she had lots of opportunities at her disposal to make that clear and put it on the record.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
So telling it to your senior officials wasn't enough. It had to be someone else she had to go to.
As an Individual
I'm not going to comment on what happened in a meeting I wasn't present for, Mr. Rankin—
As an Individual
—but I do believe, as I said in my statement, that if something this wrong had happened, she had an obligation to at least inform the Prime Minister in writing. Yes, I believe that to be true.
Liberal
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you. I want to follow up on what my colleague started.
On September 21, she stated that this decision was no longer hers because the issue had been filed in court. It was no longer possible. You tell us that you just became aware that her mind was made up last week. I find that surprising.
On November 22, the PM asked Mr. Bouchard to meet. She told him that they needed to stop, yet you're just now aware of this.
On December 5, she said, she met with you at the Château Laurier. She said: “Gerry then took over the conversation and said how we need a solution.... He said I needed to find a solution.” That's where she said that you didn't like the law because it was a Harper law.
On December 7, she receives a letter from the PM and says that this is before the court.
On December 18, there's an urgent meeting, where you said that there was no solution that did not involve interference and Katie Telford said, “we don't want to debate legalities anymore.”
On December 19, Mr. Wernick pressured her to speak to the prosecutor, and she said that at that point she was “waiting for the other shoe to drop”, and the other shoe did drop. She was let go. She asked you when she was being let go whether or not this had to do with SNC, and you asked her if this was questioning the integrity of the Prime Minister.
How is it possible that you could run an office with that many people pressuring the Attorney General, and now you're surprised and didn't know what was going on around you? How can you—
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
—be credible to us when Ms. Wilson-Raybould gave us such clear, consistent testimony of a pattern of interference in an independent prosecution?
