The composition of the House of Commons justice committee hardly guaranteed impartiality.
For their part, the opposition laid siege, while the government exercised its majority power. When, for example, the opposition put forth a motion to provide the committee with texts and documents that the Prime Minister’s friend and advisor, Gerry Butts, said he had gotten through counsel, the recorded vote was defeated by the Liberal majority.
And, though Gerry Butts, and the clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, were recalled after Jody Wilson-Raybould’s testimony, the Liberals denied her an opportunity to reappear before the committee to respond to discrepancies raised by them.
Though she was reluctantly allowed to “speak [some of ] her truth,” she has been kept from speaking it all. Why?
Wilson-Raybould’s testimony was specific, detailed, direct, and well documented. She testified – not just that she ‘felt,’ or ‘thought’ it a consistent and sustained effort by many people to interfere in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in [her] role as the Attorney General of Canada – but that she experienced that.
In her introduction, Wilson-Raybould outlined the details of what she recognized as “an inappropriate effort to secure a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with SNC-Lavalin” – an effort that went on between September and December of 2018.
She pointed out that throughout the many phone calls and meetings that ensued “there were expressed statements regarding the necessity of interference in the SNC-Lavalin matter, the potential consequences, and veiled threats if a DPA was not made available to SNC.”
She went on to explain the rule of the AG, stressing that “it is well established that the attorney general exercises prosecutorial discretion. She or he does so individually and independently,” and that, “these are not cabinet decisions.” She stated specifically what is appropriate and what is not appropriate.
She asserted that “the remainder of [her] testimony [would be] a detailed and factual delineation of approximately ten phone calls, ten in-person meetings and emails and text messages that were part of an effort to politically interfere regarding SNC, the SNC matter for purposes of securing a DPA.” She promised the committee contemporaneous notes which she had made “for most of these conversations,” “detailed notes, in edition to her clear memory.”
She then presented a stunning account of developments that took place between September 4, 2018 and January 7, 2019.
Despite their oft-repeated assurances that they understood that the ultimate decision was up to her, the PM and others involved never gave up trying to persuade her, to quote the PM at a meeting September 17, “to help out to find a solution here for SNC, citing consequences like jobs lost and SNC’s moving from Montreal.” (A threat widely questioned since.)
In response, Wilson-Raybould “explained to him the law and what [she had] the ability to do and not to do under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, around issuing directives or assuming conduct of prosecutions.
She told him she had done her due diligence and had made up [her] mind on SNC and was not going to interfere in the deci-sion of the Director”
“The Prime Minister reiterated his concern.”
Interestingly, he didn’t dispute her correctness, he stressed yet again “the potential loss of jobs and SNC moving.”
The following quotations are a sampling of the pressure reported by Wilson-Ray-bould, that continued even after she had told them that “they needed to stop.”
December 5, 2018, at a meeting with Gerry Butts:
Wilson-Raybould: I raised how I needed everybody to stop talking to me about SNC, as I had made up my mind and the engagements were inappropriate. Then Gerry took over the conversation and said how “we need a solution on the SNC stuff.” He said I needed to find a solution.
December 19, 2018:
She was asked to have a call with the clerk. She took the call from home, where she was alone. She “was determined to end all interference and conversations about the matter once and for all.”
“The clerk said he wanted to pass on where the Prime Minister was at.”
“The clerk said that ‘the PM is quite determined, quite firm, but he wants to know why the DPA route, which parliament provided for, isn’t being used’.”
“He said: ‘I think he is going to find a way to get it done, one way or another. So he is in that kind of a mood and I wanted you to be aware of it’…the clerk said he was worried about a collision ‘because the Prime Minister is pretty firm about this’.”
“On January 7, I received a call from the PM and was informed I was being shuffled out of my role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada… I believe the reason was because of the SNC matter.”“On January 11, 2019 the Friday before the shuffle, my former deputy minister is called by the clerk and told that the shuffle is happening… the clerk tells the deputy that one of the first conversations that the new minister will be expected to have with the Prime Minister will be on SNC-Lavalin.”
It would seem that Jody Wilson-Ray-bould knows a “veiled threat” when she hears one!
Wilson-Raybould’s testimony rang true. It was powerful, well documented, clear, authentic and unmistakably sincere.
The inquiry raised more questions than it answered and elicited a call for a public inquiry.
