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.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
I work for the executive, and I will not opine on how Parliament should conduct its business.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I'd like to turn, then, if I could, to Ms. Drouin.
In your account, you referred to September 19. You write the following:
I clearly recall that the former AG said to me that this would be the last time we discussed the SNC-Lavalin matter and she...instructed me to not have any discussion with the DPP.
So she had decided by that day. It seems clear from your testimony that you agreed to that. Unless there was any new evidence, why would one continue to raise this matter with her over and over again?
We heard it said that the Attorney General's decision is never final. But if there's no new evidence, no new facts, which I think you replied to Mr. Ehsassi on, why would that be appropriate, to keep going at her, when she said—and you record in your testimony—that she had made up her mind on that date?
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
Maybe there's one thing. I cannot say whether new evidence, new facts, were in the government's hands at that point.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
If it's helpful, Mr. Rankin, I firmly believe there were new facts that emerged between September and December.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Well that's new evidence that's not been brought to this table before.
I understood you replied, as a lawyer, to a question from Mr. Ehsassi, that it had to do with whether there were new facts or evidence. That's what you said.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
I said that—
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Are you telling us that there are new facts and evidence? I understand that Mr. Wernick believes that there are.
What would that evidence be?
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
I said that I cannot talk about that.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
I mean, it's not that I can't—
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
—it's that I don't know. I don't know if new facts or new evidence were available at that time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Mr. Rankin, Mr. Wernick is ready to answer that question if you want.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I asked the question of Ms. Drouin.
Am I going to be docked on my time, Chair, as a consequence of your intervening?
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Well, I'm happy to have him reply if it's not costing me the very scarce seconds I have to do this.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I'm going to stop it for a second. You should proceed with your time how you want.
He offered to answer. I was just letting you know.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I'm offering Mr. Wernick, who wishes to intervene, the opportunity to do so.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
The new facts that emerged, which I believe were public interest considerations, were the tanking of the share price of the company, making it vulnerable to takeovers, and communications from the new Premier of Quebec and the Government of Quebec, which changed the risk calculus around a conviction or not conviction of the company.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
All right. Thank you very much—and I apologize. We're just under such constraints...the way that the process works.
We had the testimony of a former judge here, Ms. Drouin. Her name is Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond. She called for an RCMP investigation into this affair if there was any evidence that Ms. Wilson-Raybould was removed as Attorney General because she refused, under pressure, to change her position in favour of a deferred prosecution agreement.
Do you agree with the former judge?
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
The thing I would have to say is what I've seen in that case...and I do have an ethical obligation. If I had seen illegal activities, it was my duty and responsibility to report them, and I have not reported anything.