Lisa Raitt

[Justice, February 26th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I feel like the hon. House leader is being paid by the word today.

I would say this. I have very few words on this matter. What I would like to know is this.

I am sorry. I cannot—

[Justice, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, only the Prime Minister can answer these questions, and that is why we are asking him to appear before the justice committee.

The second question I would like to ask is this. Between September 4 and October 10, did the Prime Minister or anyone in the Prime Minister's Office or the Clerk of the Privy Council give assurances to SNC-Lavalin that they would overturn the decision of the former attorney general?

[Justice, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, on December 5, Gerry Butts met with the former attorney general to discuss the SNC-Lavalin matter. On December 6, the Prime Minister's Office and the Prime Minister himself wrote a letter to SNC-Lavalin, refusing to meet with SNC-Lavalin anymore and directing SNC-Lavalin to the Attorney General's office.

I would like to know what happened between December 5 and December 6 that caused the Prime Minister to make that decision.

[Black History Month, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, February is Black History Month, when we celebrate the immense contributions of black Canadians. Black Canadians have overcome significant challenges. Some were brought to Canada as slaves prior to the abolition of slavery in Canada, in 1793. Some then came to Canada, escaping slavery through the Underground Railroad. Many have come more recently as immigrants, such as those who came to work in the steel plants in my home community of Whitney Pier, Cape Breton.

In the face of bigotry and discrimination, they have and continue to overcome. Together we must continue to fight racism. While much work has been done, there is more work to do.

As we honour the contributions of black Canadians, I would like to recognize the contribution of one in particular. Bruce Kyereh-Addo was a Conservative activist who campaigned for important causes in every part of the country. He worked as a staffer in Ottawa and in three provincial capitals.

Bruce died tragically and unexpectedly this past December at the age of 33. He was well known and much loved by our Conservative family from coast to coast.

This month, we recognize the contributions that he and so many other black Canadians have made to our politics, arts and culture, science and all aspects of Canadian society.

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Essex for her incredibly truthful comments because that is exactly what happened.

What I found interesting was, even though it took him six days to apologize, the Prime Minister apologized for everybody else except himself. The Prime Minister was the one who actually questioned her integrity when he said that he did not know why she resigned and that if she thought something was happening, that it was her responsibility to do something about it. He was shifting the blame.

He never apologized for that. He did not apologize for saying that she was incompetent by alluding to the fact that she did not get her job done. He also did not apologize for alluding to the fact that she was emotional with respect to the matter. These things cut to the quick of female parliamentarians when they want to put forth their issues, when they want to put forth their points of view and not be burdened by what we look like or how we speak or whether we have done something in a fashion that they think is the way to go.

As well, I believe that was a deliberate attempt to ensure the former attorney general thought twice about coming forward and saying anything. What ended up happening? We have ourselves a problem: two high profile resignations and a mess with the securities in the country.

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that no members on this side who met with SNC could promise SNC that they would get the former attorney general to change her mind, so not worry about reporting it to shareholders.

If the member wants to talk about public interests, the day on which SNC-Lavalin announced it would not get a deferred prosecution agreement, its shares fell 15%. Between September 4 and October 10, I wonder who sold and who did not sell. I wonder who bought and who did not buy.

This is an issue that goes beyond the flapping around of the member on the opposite side. This is a serious matter, it involves serious players, serious people and the Prime Minister owes us an explanation.

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying very clearly that it is in the public interest that the Prime Minister be a witness at the justice committee and come clean. It is in the public interest that he say yes to this, and it is in the public interest that our colleagues across the floor vote in favour of this motion that we have put forward today.

Why is it in the public interest?

I am very proud to sit on the justice committee, and so far we have heard from some witnesses. We have heard from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, and in that meeting we heard that the minister could not answer any questions because he was bound by solicitor-client privilege. He claimed to be bound by cabinet confidence.

He also espoused numerous opinions here in the House as to whether or not something happened regarding undue pressure, or pressure at all, on the minister. However, what I found most interesting is what the witness, the current Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, did not tell us in committee but rather affirmed later: It was that when the former attorney general went to cabinet to discuss her side of the story, he recused himself from that cabinet meeting because he did not want to hear what she had to say.

If the current Attorney General did not want to hear what the former attorney general wanted to say, there is significant public interest in knowing exactly what kind of pressure was building on the previous attorney general. Otherwise, why would the current Attorney General be afraid or concerned about being in a conflict position or maybe being in a position where he had a positive obligation to do something on behalf of the Office of the Attorney General?

The second witness of note was the Clerk of the Privy Council. The Clerk of the Privy Council allowed us to gather more facts, and more facts than we thought we were actually going to get in one sense. He certainly did not believe that there was solicitor-client privilege at play. He also went beyond talking about what was alleged to have been said and confirmed for us many things that happened in cabinet, which was very helpful.

The Clerk also told us of a series of meetings that had happened, which was very interesting, because it gave us certain dots to diarize in terms of putting together the story. However, I do not think he gave us all the information. The only person who has all the information is the witness who did not make it onto the list of the justice committee, and that is the Prime Minister.

What have we heard from the Prime Minister so far? We have heard only from the Prime Minister in successive press availabilities, wherein his story, as the leader of the opposition pointed out, has changed multiple times. What was interesting about his press conferences as they went on was that we got a little more information. Sometimes solicitor-client privilege applied and sometimes it did not. At the end, he gave minimalistic answers whenever the press wanted to go deeper, understand the issue and get more facts and more context in order to maybe come to a conclusion as to whether or not there was influence, and then he would hide behind and cower under both solicitor-client privilege and sometimes under cabinet confidence.

I will be up front and honest in saying that I do not know whether he actually believed that those two principles were at play when he said those things, because we have seen numerous legal opinions in the press since then. It has been a great time for lawyers in this country, and for social media. There have been numerous legal opinions written with respect to whether solicitor-client privilege applies or even if cabinet confidence applies, which is an important consideration as well.

Today we are also going to hear from a number of witnesses in committee. In the first tranche of meetings, we are going to have a literature review of what the Shawcross principle is. The usefulness of the deferred prosecution agreement will be discussed as well in the second hour, which is very interesting for lawyers who may want to have debates on those matters. However, the reality is that it does not really illuminate the situation in which we find ourselves, which means utilizing the facts to determine whether or not the Shawcross principle was adhered to.

I will make a very bold prediction that in today's questioning of these witnesses, one of them will say that they simply do not have enough facts in order to render a clear decision on whether or not the Shawcross principle had been violated, because we do not have all the facts.

Let us look at the meetings.

On September 4, there was a letter to SNC-Lavalin from the director of public prosecutions saying no. On September 17, the Clerk of the Privy Council tells us that he, the Prime Minister and the former attorney general had a meeting, that they did discuss the SNC-Lavalin matter and, supposedly, the former attorney general indicated that she would not be changing her mind and that she would not be succumbing to the pressure.

How do we know that? The Clerk of the Privy Council told us a story in the justice committee. The Prime Minister has given us bits and bobs of information in press conferences. We have not heard yet from the former attorney general. However, the Prime Minister's testimony is crucial and key in this. There were three people in that meeting. We need to hear from every one of those people in order to ensure we know what happened.

We fast forward to the December 5 meeting that happened between Gerald Butts, the former principal secretary to the Prime Minister, and the former attorney general. Having been honoured to be a former cabinet minister in this place, any meeting like that would have a readout sent back to the Prime Minister. We need to know what was in the readout to the Prime Minister, and only the Prime Minister can tell us that.

On December 6, the Prime Minister sent a letter to SNC-Lavalin and the former attorney general indicating this was all the problem of the attorney general and SNC should speak to her. We need to know what thought process and conversations happened up to the moment when he signed that letter, under his own signature.

There was also a meeting on December 17, again, between the Prime Minister's Office and the staff of the former attorney general. Both would send readouts back to their minister and Prime Minister. We need to know what happened there.

Finally, on December 18, the Clerk of the Privy Council had a telephone call with the former attorney general. There is no question that he gave a readout to the Prime Minister after that, because it seems to have formed the basis of a shuffle that happened no more than 20 days later.

There is another reason this is in the public interest.

Shareholders of SNC-Lavalin have recently contacted a law firm in Windsor, Ontario. They are concerned about the fact that SNC-Lavalin was given notification by the director of public prosecutions on September 4 that she would not be granting a deferred prosecution agreement. However, it was not until October 10 that SNC-Lavalin disclosed this matter. In that intervening time, between September 4 and October 10, shareholders of SNC-Lavalin were not made aware of the fact that the journey to get a deferred prosecution agreement had ended. Why that matters to us is the following.

Who in the Prime Minister's Office, what cabinet minister, or even did the Prime Minister give assurances to SNC-Lavalin that it would not have to disclose a material fact to its shareholders because they were going to sort it all out? An investigation will be going on there. This is not a political matter. While I respect the ethics office and the justice committee, we are far beyond that. We are now in the world of concerns about whether there is true representation and timely disclosure given by the company on a matter that could possibly take away 15% of its revenues. That is a material fact for shareholders to know.

From September 4 in writing until October 10 in writing, no material disclosure happened by SNC-Lavalin on this point. We will not rest until the Prime Minister appears before the justice committee and tells us the truth. Canadians deserve it, shareholders deserve it and we deserve it as an institution.

[Justice, February 21st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, here is the chronology.

On September 4, a final decision is given by the director of public prosecutions. On September 17, there is a meeting between the minister as she then was, the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister, where she asked whether or not she was being directed, and she was told no.

After that, there is a meeting on September 18, between SNC-Lavalin and the Clerk of the Privy Council. On December 5, there are discussions, again, between the former attorney general and the former private secretary to the Prime Minister. On December 19, the Clerk of the Privy Council picked up the phone to pressure the attorney general in her decision—

[Justice, February 21st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, there were incredibly troubling admissions made at this morning's justice committee, so many that I do not have enough time to go through them all. However, we are going to fight to do better and make sure we get this on the record.

This morning, the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed that he and the Prime Minister sought to influence the decision of the attorney general in the matter of bribery and fraud charges against SNC-Lavalin. Could the Prime Minister confirm that this indeed is the case?

[Justice, February 21st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, if an attorney general receives evidence of illegal activity within the government, he has an obligation to act. I asked the Attorney General this morning at justice committee whether or not he felt he needed to act based upon what was told to him at cabinet by the former attorney general. He did not respond.

However, the Clerk of the Privy Council has now confirmed for us that the minister was not present and recused himself from that part of the cabinet meeting.

Could the minister tell us if the Prime Minister told him to leave the room?