Justice Committee on March 6th, 2019

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Okay. This is a key point, because she instructed you to not raise the matter of SNC anymore.

How do you reconcile this with her legal and professional responsibility to consider public policy interests such as the impact on jobs and other considerations we have heard here?

[Nathalie Drouin]

I think it's for her to answer that.

I would like to offer that she said last week that she did her due diligence when she received a section 13 letter.

In the legal opinion I described we say that the first thing for an AG is really to make sure she has all the information she needs to take her decision.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Okay. According to your testimony then, the former minister and AG instructed the Department of Justice not to discuss, consult or consider anything related to SNC-Lavalin after September 19. In your opinion, did that impede the government's ability to seek legal advice on a new policy tool, and did that obstruct the government's ability to advocate lawfully for jobs? Did that affect the government's ability to get an external opinion on a new policy tool?

[Nathalie Drouin]

The government can always seek opinions when developing a new program or...

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

It can do so only with the approval of the attorney general.

[Nathalie Drouin]

As to whether the government can seek a legal opinion on a criminal case in particular, the opinion I referred to states that, even though it was suggested that an outside opinion be sought, for example, it was recommended that action be taken in a transparent manner and that the action be published in the Canada Gazette.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

The former minister and attorney general said she wanted no further work on that file. Did that decision prevent the government from seeking other opinions on the SNC-Lavalin matter?

[Nathalie Drouin]

As the attorney general is the decision-maker in this case, when she made her decision, she in fact meant that the door was closed to any further action. She alone could decide whether to exercise authorities under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

In your experience, in your role both here and provincially, is it a usual course of business, or normal, for an Attorney General to not forward legal advice to the equivalent of the Privy Council, whether it's provincially or here at the federal government?

[Nathalie Drouin]

As I said, I report to the Minister of Justice and to the other ministers, including the Prime Minister. If I receive any such instructions, I'm going to act accordingly.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Wernick, quickly, on December 19.... There was lots being said there. You mentioned, and it's been mentioned in testimony, that the Prime Minister and the former minister were at loggerheads over issues.

Were they at loggerheads over any issue other than SNC-Lavalin? Was there something else at play here?

[Michael Wernick]

I'm not sure that's a question I should answer, because it's not covered by the SNC question.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Is there an issue they were at loggerheads over other than SNC-Lavalin?

[Michael Wernick]

Again, I do not have contemporaneous notes of the conversation.

I would not say they were at loggerheads. I was worried, as a secretary of cabinet, that frustration was building, that colleagues and the Prime Minister had not been provided an explanation for why the DPA route, or option, was not being chosen or exercised, and why seeking outside counsel to do due diligence on the first use of a DPA was not being chosen. There was building frustration at the time, and I was concerned about that.

The smooth functioning of cabinet requires that ministers have a good working relationship with each other.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Rankin.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

Before my time starts, I want to put it on the record that I have a motion to make at the end of the proceedings, again, if I may.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Okay.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I have a couple of questions for Mr. Wernick and a couple of questions for Ms. Drouin.

For you, Mr. Wernick, in the last round I asked you a number of questions about the call you made on December 19 to the former attorney general. You said that you didn't recall a number of the things I asked you.

Now we have, as a fact, that the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould and Dr. Philpott quit their jobs. They resigned from cabinet. And you're telling Canadians that you don't remember saying any of the key things that the former attorney general testified to.

My question is: How can you expect Canadians to believe that these highly competent, highly credible women got this so wrong?

[Michael Wernick]

I think there are a few plot holes in the question.

It is very clear from the sequence of events that whatever triggered minister Wilson-Raybould's resignation happened after she was moved and after the appearance of the Globe and Mail story.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Okay.

I have another one for you. This goes to your experience in setting up fair process. As the Clerk, and over your 37 years as a public servant, you've seen the need for fairness in public institutions.

My question is this. Do you think it's fair that the Liberals on this committee voted to invite you back to address the testimony of Jody Wilson-Raybould, but they just voted against extending her the same courtesy?

[Michael Wernick]

I think it's entirely for the committee to decide.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

So you have no opinion—

[Michael Wernick]

I have no opinion.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

—based on your vast experience with agencies, boards and commissions whether that's a fair process.