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.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
“Initial indication with” respect to, and I can't make out what the rest is. I'm wondering if you can help us.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
What the notes allow us to confirm is that on September 18, in the afternoon, the company had not been informed by the DPP that a DPA was going to be declined.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
Okay, interestingly enough, that is not what the legal officer to the DPP said in her letter to SNC-Lavalin. I understand—
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
It's what the company said.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
Sure.
You also provided for us the clerk contact with SNC. Is this everything on the contacts now? Are you content that it is the entirety of your interactions with SNC-Lavalin?
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
It's everything that I'm aware of.
When the Ethics Commissioner began a process, which was some time ago, there was an immediate request for all documents and records remotely related to SNC-Lavalin to be secured, and they were secured and they were sequestered. That is probably, now that I think about it, why Mr. Butts' email traffic was secured and sequestered.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
I'm glad you understand the question now.
In your previous testimony, I asked you if you were informed of the September 4 decision by the director of public prosecutions. You said no, and then by midway of your testimony you indicated, “I think she advised the Prime Minister of her view that a deferred prosecution agreement was not a good course and she had no intention of intervening. And indeed, she has never intervened.”
As I said before, we're on safe ground to say that you and the Prime Minister both knew on September 17 that she had made her final decision and had no intention of intervening.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
And as a matter of law, the decision is never final because she could always take into consideration public interest considerations and was able to take into account new information.
Conservative
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
No, I'm not.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
I have retained personal counsel because of Mr. Scheer's letter to the RCMP.
Conservative
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
My lawyer advised me on the boundaries of my testimony this afternoon.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
Yes, but what you just read there is interesting to me about making the assertion that everything was okay. I'm wondering who wrote that for you, because it sounds an awful lot like some other comments that were mentioned by Mr. Butts this morning and some people who appeared on panels on television.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
What are you insinuating?
Conservative
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
You are insinuating. What are you insinuating?
Conservative
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
I wrote it on my computer after conversations with my counsel.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
Okay, so that wasn't so hard to say.
I'm wondering if I could read to you, Mr. Wernick, what Jody Wilson-Raybould said in her testimony. She said:
The Clerk of the Privy Council would have known on the September 17 meeting because I specifically mentioned it to both him and the Prime Minister, and went into detail about the section 13 notice that I received. Again, I was very clear that I had already made my decision around the deferred prosecution agreement and not intervening.
There is no reason not to take that as a fact, is there?
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
As I testified last time, 90% of the conversation at that meeting, and the reason for my presence, was to discuss the indigenous agenda.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
I didn't ask about that. I asked you whether or not that's a fact in your mind now. Is that an agreed fact between you and me that on September 17 she went into detail about the section 13 notice, or do you not remember it now?
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
I do not believe that it was in detail or lengthy. She made her position clear, as she testified, that in her mind she had made a final decision.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
I'm going to ask the deputy minister of justice a question right now.
We heard in great detail from Jody Wilson-Raybould's testimony some things that I found quite disturbing, as a lawyer, and I'm just going to tell you what they are.
I understand fully that you were directed on September 19 not to have any discussions with the director of public prosecutions, and you didn't, and I accept that. But on September 16 two members of the PMO said that individual Crown prosecutors wanted a negotiated agreement but the director did not. They also said that they heard that the deputy minister—you—thought she could get the PPSC to say,“We think that we should get outside advice.” On the 19th, the same two from the PMO raised the idea of an informal reach-out to the director either through the Attorney General staff or through you.
Do you believe that direct contact between staff of the Prime Minister's Office with your Crown prosecutors or the director of public prosecutions or the Public Prosecution Service is appropriate?