It's March 19.
Evidence of meeting #138 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 decision.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #138 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 decision.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
An hon. member
It's March 19.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I would like to respond to my friend, Mr. Fraser, but I just want to make sure I understand what we're voting on. Are we voting first on the amendment, namely that Ms. Wilson-Raybould be invited to return, or—
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Would you have considered that to be a friendly amendment to the original motion?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Okay.
Mr. Clerk, as opposed to making it an amendment, Mr. Rankin considers it a friendly amendment to the original motion. Can we just consider it incorporated into the original motion? We're adding one other witness into the original motion.
Now Mr. Fraser is suggesting to defer that until Tuesday, the 19th.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
That works perfectly because then we can deal with it that way.
I'm not sure that everybody is in agreement, but I think that at least we know what's on the floor now.
There was a motion. Ms. Wilson-Raybould is now incorporated as one of the people on the list of the motion, and Mr. Fraser is asking for it to be deferred until the 19th. That's the amendment on the floor right now, as Mr. Fraser's amendment.
Now I'm going to come back to the speakers list.
Mr. Cooper, Monsieur Berthold and Mr. Rankin are next on the speakers list.
4:35 p.m.
St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Fraser suggests that we reflect on this behind closed doors instead of before the public. That has been a consistent way that Liberal MPs have approached these issues. At every step of the way, they have tried to block or obstruct hearing from witnesses until they really feel they have no choice.
It may very well be that we need to hear from additional witnesses, but in the face of the testimony today, it is inconceivable to think that we would not hear from Jessica Prince, Katie Telford, Elder Marques and Mathieu Bouchard.
Very conveniently, we heard from Mr. Butts who spoke to his version of events in the December 18 meeting, and so it seems perfectly appropriate, in fact, necessary, to hear from the two other participants at that meeting, Ms. Prince and Ms. Telford.
It's completely clear that Elder Marques and Mathieu Bouchard repeatedly met with or communicated with Jody Wilson-Raybould's chief of staff and Jody Wilson-Raybould herself, including on November 22, but on other dates with her chief of staff, including October 18 and October 26, to pressure or to reiterate the need for, among other things, an outside opinion. Therefore, how can we not hear from those individuals in order to understand exactly what was discussed, in order to understand the full context?
As for Ms. Wilson-Raybould, it is absolutely clear that we need to hear from her about the period after she was fired as the Attorney General. As Mr. Poilievre said, it is all the more important in light of her testimony that on two occasions the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council raised an impossibility with her, and that is that SNC-Lavalin would be moving its headquarters.
Mr. Wernick, after being questioned by Mr. Poilievre for about five minutes, dodged his straightforward question about whether he had ever said that. Then he flat out denied that he ever said it, contradicting himself when he appeared before our committee last, when he stated that they openly discussed about the company moving or closing. That was his characterization of what took place at the meeting with Jody Wilson-Raybould, when she said that she was threatened not once, not twice, but three times by Mr. Wernick. He said two weeks ago that he talked about moving the company, and then after he was cornered, he suddenly issued a blanket denial.
We need to hear from Jody Wilson-Raybould as well.
Why delay? Why should we have to wait 13 days to make a decision? What we need is this process to continue in an expeditious fashion. There is no basis for why this decision should have to wait another almost two weeks when it is so painfully obvious that it is necessary to hear from all of these individuals—these four individuals plus Jody Wilson-Raybould—in order to understand the full truth.
4:35 p.m.
Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It was an honour and a pleasure to be here at this meeting today. I learned a lot, but I unfortunately feel it wasn't enough.
Today we heard from Mr. Butts. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights agreed to convene during a parliamentary break week to hear Mr. Butts' testimony. However, we've just learned that an amendment will be introduced to bring us back just before the parliamentary session. In other words, we are choosing which witnesses we're going to hear before the committee and when we're going to hear them. I find that entirely unacceptable.
I remember Ms. Wilson-Raybould's testimony very clearly. She said on several occasions that she had experienced sustained pressure and veiled threats. I listened carefully to today's testimony. The witnesses said they weren't threats but merely requests for outside opinions. So there are two completely different perceptions here.
In a situation of conflict, one very rarely asks the person who made veiled threats to another person to criticize himself. Then he'll say he was making threats. In actual interpersonal relations, we should ask the person who was put under inappropriate pressure what actually happened. We should believe that person's perception of the situation and not that of the people who continually harassed her or who constantly asked her to be accountable for the way she managed something, whether it was inappropriate or not. I think we should believe the person who says she was put under inappropriate pressure.
Today we heard Mr. Butts say that Ms. Wilson-Raybould's demotion had absolutely nothing to do with the SNC-Lavalin affair. However, that's not what we understand from everything that has happened. Unfortunately, we were unable to hear Ms. Wilson-Raybould discuss that same situation because she wasn't authorized to talk about it. It's unacceptable to allow Mr. Butts tell us today that the demotion of the former Minister of Justice and the Attorney General had nothing to do with the SNC-Lavalin affair without letting Ms. Wilson-Raybould come and tell us whether she in fact perceived it as being directly related to that affair.
In her testimony, Ms. Wilson-Raybould frequently mentioned veiled threats. However, what is the biggest threat for a cabinet member if not the threat of losing her current position and being demoted? If we look solely at the facts, we can see that Ms. Wilson-Raybould lost her position. The veiled threats were acted upon.
It's important to hear Ms. Wilson-Raybould, and it's important to hear her as soon as possible instead of relying on the Liberals political program to determine the when, who, how and why. We owe it to Canadians to shed light on this matter as quickly as possible. We owe it to Canadians to learn the entire truth and to hear all the witnesses as soon as possible.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I appreciate that it's time to wrap it up soon, but I just want to say to my friend, Mr. Fraser, in response to his comments, that yes indeed it has been our practice to deal in camera with the selection of witnesses. That's in the context in which we're trying to not embarrass people in public about which witness we choose and which expert we like over another. I think that's why we've done that. I don't think it's written in stone.
The Liberals' motion was that we proceed step by step all right, but I think we can agree that circumstances are a little different today. We have some serious testimony that seems to be contradictory. It's a matter of fairness to allow Ms. Katie Telford to defend herself and to be given an opportunity to confront the statement that I read into the record and our witness, Ms. Wilson-Raybould, read into the record. If it's a question of an extensive statement like she made last time, to which Mr. Fraser alluded, I'm happy to have her waive such a statement. We don't need it now. We're getting into the facts and so forth.
If the Liberals on the committee now vote down an effort to tell Canadians we're going to continue to get to the truth of this, they're doing a disservice to our committee and they're doing a disservice to the notion of getting to the truth.
I agree with Mr. Cooper. It's painfully obvious these witnesses must be heard. Let's just get on with it.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much, Mr. Rankin.
Does anybody on that side wish to respond?
The clerk has written out the correct procedural amendment to give effect to what Mr. Fraser suggested, which is, that all the words after “That” be replaced by the following: “the committee should consider next steps and potential additional witnesses on Tuesday, March 19, 2019.”
The clerk says that is the right way to make that amendment.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Now we'll return to the amendment.
The amendment is that all the words after “That” be replaced by the following: “the committee should consider next steps and potential additional witnesses on Tuesday, March 19, 2019.”
That is the amendment to give effect to what Mr. Fraser has suggested.
The vote would be on the amendment, which essentially would replace the main motion, right?
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
My motion is no longer on the floor. Mr. Fraser's amended motion is what we're voting on, only.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
That would be correct.
We would vote on the amendment, and then the main motion would essentially be replaced by the amendment and we would vote on that.
