Justice Committee on March 6th, 2019

[Gerald Butts]

It was very similar, as it turns out, to the....

As everyone in this committee knows, the splitting of INAC was a royal commission recommendation. When the Prime Minister, through the cabinet shuffle in 2017, I believe, in the summer—I could be wrong about that—created the new Indigenous Services portfolio, I felt he made a really strong point at the time of appointing Minister Philpott to that portfolio. She was obviously in her dream job in the Department of Health, but she took on that role because we had a collective understanding, as you folks know around the government, about how important the reconciliation agenda is. We wanted to make a very strong statement, the Prime Minister wanted to make a very strong statement, that the agenda was not going to slow down, which is why he wanted to appoint Minister Wilson-Raybould to the role.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

We now have Ms. May, Monsieur Plamondon and Mr. Weir, each for three minutes, and then Mr. Rankin has advised he wants to make a motion. Perhaps we can do that after we excuse the witness.

Go ahead, Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thanks, and I'm going to disclose that I'm friends with the witness and I would be okay with a first name basis, if that's okay with you, Gerry.

[Gerald Butts]

It is.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I am surprised that in your evidence you don't make reference to two people who I think played a very big role in this drama, the Clerk of the Privy Council and the lawyer for SNC-Lavalin.

I'm going to ask how it is that you don't seem to recognize that the heaviest intimidation of our former attorney general came from one-on-one meetings with the Clerk of the Privy Council on September 19 and with that following phone call on December 19?

I will let you know I completely believe every word we heard from Jody Wilson-Raybould, without a doubt, so how is it that your evidence doesn't make reference to his actions, and did you know that he was going to phone her at home on December 19 and make veiled threats?

[Gerald Butts]

No. I'm aware that the Clerk and the deputy minister of justice are appearing later, so I know you'll have an opportunity to speak to them directly.

I will say about the Clerk of the Privy Council, whom I've come to know fairly well over the past three and a half years, that I find the accusations levelled against him completely inconsistent with his character. He has made enormous family and personal sacrifices to continue to serve the people of Canada, and I just can't imagine a circumstance in which Michael Wernick would do the things he is alleged to have done. I find that even less credible given that I am alleged to have done things I know I didn't do.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I would only say, Gerry, that I still think that your evidence could be consistent with Jody Wilson-Raybould's to the extent that you were massively distracted by other events out of town for four weeks and could have forgotten things, but I don't find contradictions to the extent of he-said-she-said.

I'll move on to Frank Iacobucci, who is described in the one-on-one meeting that the former attorney general had with the Clerk as “not a shrinking violet”. In the same period of time when there was a lot of pressure from SNC-Lavalin, Mr. Iacobucci—who of course is a distinguished former Supreme Court judge—was retained by the Prime Minister's office to handle the indigenous consultations on the Kinder Morgan matter.

Did that lead to you having conversations with SNC-Lavalin's lawyer on the subject of these threats that they might leave the country?

[Gerald Butts]

No, I've never had a conversation with Justice Iacobucci on SNC-Lavalin.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Can I ask, then, if you sought independent evidence of any evidence that there was a threat to jobs? This is all riding on the threat to jobs, but based on their 2018 audited financial statements, SNC-Lavalin currently has $15 billion in back orders. They have a very secure financial situation, with gross revenues of $10 billion.

Is there any evidence that jobs were actually going to be at stake by letting this go through the courts and letting the independent director of public prosecutions and the Attorney General do their jobs?

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

That's the last question.

[Gerald Butts]

That's too bad.

That's my understanding from Department of Finance briefings, but I have to say it's been a long time. I can't recall anything specific.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to Mr. Plamondon.

[Gerald Butts]

To be clear, I can't recall, I cannot cite, a specific study being done on a specific day by a specific person. I was briefed multiple times on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much for that clarification.

You have the floor, Mr. Plamondon.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

I'm going to give you a taste of our interpretation in the House of Commons.

If my understanding is correct, the minister made the decision not to use this new legislation on deferred prosecution agreements after only 12 days, that is to say, in early September, September 16.

When did you, in the Prime Minister's Office, become certain that she would not change her mind or, first of all, that she had made that decision? When were you informed that she had made the decision not to use the act but instead to allow the prosecution to proceed?

[Gerald Butts]

I think it's a central contention of my testimony that it was not possible for the Attorney General to come to a final decision before a verdict was rendered, so I was never aware, until her testimony last week, that she believed she had made a final decision on September 16.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

During your dinner on December 5, was it she who raised the matter at the end of the meal, or was it you? It was she who raised the matter?

[Gerald Butts]

Yes, that's correct.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

She raised it, even though, in her mind, at that time, her final decision had been made since September.

[Gerald Butts]

I'm not sure how to explain that, because as I've said a few times, I don't believe that to be the case.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Did the two resigning ministers vote for the bill a year ago, the bill that would allow these agreements?

[Gerald Butts]

I'm not sure.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Surely the bill was discussed in cabinet. Was there unanimity?

[Gerald Butts]

I believe, Mr. Chair, that's outside the scope, because the matter went before cabinet last spring. I can't comment on that.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

I have a final question.

Under the bill, the minister or acting minister may intervene and go with an agreement instead of a prosecution. Until what point may the minister intervene? Is it true that the minister may intervene to reach an out-of-court agreement right up until the judge makes a decision, until a judgement is rendered?