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.
4:25 p.m.
Carleton, CPC
Yes, Mr. Chair, it's necessary for Madam Jody Wilson-Raybould to return. We now have contradictions between witnesses, another good reason why we should have allowed them to swear an oath before they spoke. I still don't understand the government's objection to having people swear an oath and assert that they will be truthful.
What contradiction worries me the most is that—
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Can I just understand? Are you moving an amendment right now to Mr. Rankin's motion?
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
Carleton, CPC
Sorry, I misunderstood, then. I thought the motion did involve Ms. Wilson-Raybould. I apologize.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I moved that motion this morning, and it was defeated by the Liberal majority, Mr. Poilievre.
I am now asking for four witnesses, separate from that particular witness, to come forward.
4:25 p.m.
Carleton, CPC
Okay, I move the amendment that Ms. Jody Wilson-Raybould be recalled and that the committee call on the government to release her to tell any further information that happened after she was named Veterans Affairs minister.
That is my amendment.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you. I understand.
Part (a) of the motion already deals with that issue. You're proposing to add an (e) and include Jody Wilson-Raybould, the former attorney general and minister of justice.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Was the meeting this morning separate from the meeting this afternoon?
4:25 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
Milton, CPC
Ms. Wilson-Raybould has sent a statement to the media this afternoon indicating she would be willing to reappear at the committee. I think she is clearly doing what Mr. Butts did last week, which is she's asking for an opportunity, and that's why we've moved the amendment. We want to make sure that we are able to consider this with the new evidence that has recently arisen.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Well, you had the floor and then it went to Ms. Raitt. I'll come back to you.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Mr. Fraser has given you his....
We'll come back to Mr. Fraser, who was next.
Mr. Poilievre.
4:25 p.m.
Carleton, CPC
Thank you, Mr. Fraser. I appreciate that.
Ms. Wilson-Raybould testified that both the Clerk and the Prime Minister, on multiple occasions and on separate dates, told her that, if she did not immediately proceed toward a deferred prosecution agreement to shelve the charges against SNC-Lavalin, the company would move its headquarters out of Montreal.
We know that's impossible, because of a loan agreement between the company and the Caisse de dépôt that is part of a $1.5-billion financing deal. Somebody would have been telling her a blatant falsehood in an attempt to get her to sign the deferred prosecution agreement with false information.
Now, today Mr. Wernick denied having said that. Ms. Wilson-Raybould's testimony alleges that he did say it on two separate occasions, once in September and then once again in December. So we have a major divergence of factual accounts between these two witnesses.
Mr. Wernick has been given a second chance to come back and testify, whereasMs. Wilson-Raybould has not. She would have a stronger case for returning because, as we all know, she was prohibited from telling her entire story when she first came before the committee.
The government must release her, completely eliminate the gag order that prevents her from telling the whole truth, so that she can come back.
I will close by returning to my first point. It has been alleged—and, I argue, been proven—that members of the Prime Minister's inner circle pressured Madam Wilson-Raybould into making a decision she did not want to make.
However, it may be more serious than that. If the Prime Minister, the Clerk of the Privy Council and other senior staff deliberately told a falsehood to Canada's top law officer to trick her into shelving criminal charges, then that could let rise to a higher level of criminal conduct.
We have significant evidence that such a claim was made by those officials, including the Prime Minister, to Madam Wilson-Raybould. It is incumbent upon us to have her come back here, now that Mr. Wernick has had an opportunity to contradict her, and tell her side of the story.
Thank you.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you.
I'll just note again that for the purposes of the record, the amendment is going to be deemed to be made by Ms. Raitt because she put up her hand afterwards, and Mr. Poilievre is not a member of the committee so he can't put forward an amendment.
Mr. Fraser.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
I have a few things here. The way the committee has functioned on these meetings up to this point is in a step-by-step fashion in order to determine the next steps and in order to determine what we've learned at the various meetings regarding the testimony, and then to have a subsequent meeting involving next steps.
I note that regarding the motion that convened today's meeting, the parameters were in order for us to hear the testimonies today, have an opportunity to reflect on them, and then, at the following meeting, determine the way forward for the committee, including whatever next steps may follow. In previous the times we've done that, we've seen further witnesses come forward.
I note a couple of things. I note, first of all, that Ms. Jody Wilson-Raybould had the order in council that allowed her to speak to a number of things that were not able to be spoken about by Ms. Drouin and Mr. Wernick the last time they were here. That was one of the main reasons to have them back. I recognize, as well, that Ms. Jody Wilson-Raybould had the opportunity to have an extensive opening statement, and that was obviously given to Mr. Butts today as well. Also, I think she testified for a period of about four hours.
It's obvious that we have a lot of information before us now as a committee. My suggestion is that we reflect on today's testimony and do what the motion convening today's meeting had anticipated, which is, at the next meeting, to determine the next steps. For all of those reasons, I think it's important for us to see that the next meeting be when we come back on March 18, and that we determine where we go from there.
For those reasons, I'm asking to put consideration of the motion over to that date.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
If that proposal is acceptable, what we would need to do is deal with the current amendment by Ms. Raitt, and then move back to another amendment from Mr. Fraser to defer it to March 18.