We heard from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau today doubling down on
no apology one day after the ethics commissioner ruled he violated
conflict of interest rules in the SNC-Lavalin controversy.
Earlier this year, Trudeau and members of his staff
were accused of inappropriately pressuring
former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybold to intervene in a criminal case
against SNC, and SNC as we've been talking about this evening and throughout the week
is a big engineering and construction company mainly
headquartered in Quebec.
The ethics commissioner determined Trudeau tried to
unduly influence Wilson-Raybould and further the private interests of SNC.
Jody Wilson-Raybould, as I mentioned, is the former Minister of Justice and
Attorney General now an independent B.C. MP and candidate for Vancouver-Granville.
She joins us from Vancouver.
Hi there, Ms. Wilson-Raybould, nice to see you.
Thanks for making time for us.
Pleasure, thanks to be here.
So, the RCMP has used some
unusual language with CBC to make it apparent that they are seriously looking
at launching an investigation into the Prime Minister's actions based on the
ethics commissioner's reports.
Have you been contacted by the RCMP on this?
I actually haven't seen what the RCMP has said today but I leave any
potential investigation in their capable hands.
They basically said that they usually never comment unless they lay charges
but they did tell the CBC that they're examining the matter carefully was all available information
they'll take appropriate actions as required.
I'm just wondering have they reached out to you at all in this?
They haven't reached out to me on this, no.
Do you think the RCMP should investigate?
I'm asking you because the opposition in
response to the ethics commissioners report released yesterday said that this
this further makes the case for an investigation.
Do you agree?
Well, I mean
there were revelations for me and in the commissioner's report, but again in terms
of criminal investigations, I leave that determination to the to the RCMP.
What revelations were there for you in that report?
Well, I mean I've read the
report many times now as you can appreciate.
There was many conversations
that were being had by former colleagues of mine
political staffers around SNC meeting with officials of the company and having
discussions that I wasn't aware of, not to say I have to be aware of every
particular discussion but that was one revelation the Commissioner asked me
back in June -- early June -- when I met with him about my knowledge of those two legal opinions.
That came as a great surprise to me again I had no knowledge of those either.
So just to be clear, you didn't know that
in the reported details that the prime minister's office had previously reached
out to former Supreme Court justices and then asked you to
seek a legal opinion as well.
You weren't aware that they had already done so?
I had no knowledge of that.
And what about, when you talk about SNC and the
extent of its involvement did you know for example that SNC specifically asked
officials in the Minister of Finance's Office to attach the DPA to the
budget implementation bill?
That was of surprise to me, I did not have knowledge of that either.
Were you aware, I guess, of the extent as far as public records are
available that SNC lobbied the federal government for the DPA?
I was aware that
there were a number of meetings that were had between SNC and various ministers.
I did not have any medians nor did anybody within my exempt staff have
meetings with that company but I was aware of some engagement in that regard
and recognized that they as a company have the ability to lobby officials.
Do you feel that the level of engagement at the time was inappropriate
and if so, did you do anything about it?
Well, I was aware that there were meetings.
I didn't know the nature of those meetings or what was said.
I had discussions with former colleagues of mine that had expressed that they had
had conversations but the nature of those conversations and the detail of
those conversations was not made available to me.
I guess what I'm getting at is did you believe at the time that the introduction of the
DPA or the sort of the Prime Minister's attachment to implementing
one or other ministers attachment to implementing one --
Do you think it was attached to SNC's desire to?
And if you did feel like -- did you have a
feeling at the time that that was inappropriate?
Well, it was made clear
in the commissioner's report that I was of the view that the integrity regime or
the deferred prosecution regime was being introduced with SNC in mind.
I undertook, as I was the Minister of Justice, to amend the Criminal Code to
bring in the new regime and provide that additional discretionary tool to
prosecutors but the extent of the relationship or the engagement or the
lobbying of that company I was not aware of.
And you know, to be honest, I find it
curious that there was such detailed discussion that was not brought to my attention.
Would you have introduced that mechanism for prosecutors?
Would you have attached yourself to the DPA had you have known
the extent of SNC's involvement?
Well, I really never liked to speak in hypotheticals but I think it's important to separate
out the deferred prosecution regime and the ability for a prosecutor to exercise
their discretion and use that tool.
From what the Commissioner reported on and
the relationship between and among the Prime Minister's Office, SNC and various
other ministers' offices -- they're two separate issues.
The regime that was brought into the Criminal Code in September of 2018 is a tool for
prosecutors and --
But we know now that SNC very specifically asked for it right?
And we know they asked for a lot.
I take your point that it's
separate but I think in the minds of Canadians who are reading through that
report the introduction of that regime is seen to be attached to SNC wanting it to be introduced.
Would you, had you known the full extent of SNC's involvement,
been supportive of the introduction of that is even an option for prosecutors?
Well, I'll answer the question this way -- and I'm not trying to be evasive -- I have
confidence in the institutions of our government and that includes the
independence of the prosecutor's office and the independence of the Office of
the Attorney General.
I saw validation of that independence
and the importance of it in the commissioner's report yesterday.
So having said that, providing a discretionary tool to the Director of
Public Prosecutions in this case whether or not to enter into discussions around
negotiations of a deferred prosecution agreement I have confidence in our
institutions and I believe the independence of our institutions and
that our institutions are functioning properly was reflected and validated in
the commissioner's report.
So it's not the tool being provided to prosecutors that
is a problem or that is of concern, because we have a prosecution service in
this country that does their job, is thorough, and we have an Office of the
Attorney General of Canada likewise that is an independent office, and those two
offices from my perspective were validated yesterday in the commissioner's report.
When you testified before the Justice Committee originally
months ago you were asked pretty specifically I think by Elizabeth May
and by Lisa Raitt whether you felt
and I'll read the question actually specifically
Do you believe that individually or collectively the
pressure to which you were subjected contravened the Criminal Code and now
and asked if you thought anything illegal happened.
You at the time said no.
Do you still believe that?
Well, I based my answer on
what I have been privy to, the engagements that I have had, how things have unfolded
my understanding of the integrity regime and and my engagements
with various people that were reflected in the commissioner's report.
Based on the relevant information that I have during the time that I was the Attorney General
I still stand by that answer that I gave at the committee.
Having said that, and I'm not inferring anything
there's, as I said, information that came to light when
I read the commissioner's report and I leave it to the RCM Police to
determine if there's other relevant information that's pertinent to the
to answering the question that you asked.
Just so that I'm clear though
based on what you know and the information that you have available to
yourself you still would say that nothing illegal happened where
the pressure put on you is concerned.
No, but I do look at the commissioner's
report and and the violation of a conflict of interest act incredibly
seriously and I hope that Canadians and and certainly that the government looks
at that report seriously and ensures that something like this never happens again.
The Prime Minister continues to reiterate that
he says he won't apologize for standing up for Canadian jobs.
He continues to reiterate that that was his motivation.
Do you think that his motivation was different than that, and if so what was it?
Well, I can't speak to the motivation of the Prime Minister.
I've heard him speak about jobs and I don't think anybody would disagree that jobs are
incredibly important to Canadians and to elected officials to ensure we do
everything we can for Canadians to have good, well-paying jobs.
We all agree on that.
The issue here, and what was reflected in the commissioner's report, is
around our institutions of government, around ensuring that we uphold their
independence and uphold the rule of law.
That was what I was doing in my role then as the Attorney General.
I believe that's what Canadians care about and
will take if there's lessons to be taken from this some eight months that we've
been having this conversation is that we all must remain vigilant and we all have
a role to play in ensuring our institutions, the fundamental tenants of
our democracy, are upheld.
That's what makes our our country great and that's what I'm hearing
when I speak to people in Vancouver-Granville, for example, and across the country
about the past eight months and how we need to ensure that
the people that are making decisions on public policy issues or
are tasked with upholding the independence of our institutions are
making those decisions based on fundamental values and principles that
we've spent years as a nation fostering and ensuring that they do everything
they can to ensure that they have the trust of the individuals that elected them.
That's the obligation of any elected public official.
[VASSY] Before I let you go
right up until the time the Prime Minister removed you from caucus you said
you were a proud member of the Liberal Party.
You know that in recent history
various ethics scandals involving Liberal governments during a campaign
eventually helped defeat those governments.
What would you say to Liberals, former colleagues, former party members of yours
who would accuse you of helping to elect now a Conservative government?
Well, I reject that.
I am the same person that I was when I started knocking on doors 15 months
before the last election.
I ascribe fundamentally to the values that I see
in the Liberal Party -- values of equality and justice and inclusion.
I haven't changed, and that's what I talk to people about with people here in my riding and
I didn't do or take any actions as the Attorney General because I wanted
somebody to be elected.
[VASSY] But what if that happens?
Well, I would not change the actions that I took.
I believe that Canadians want to see in their public
officials particularly ones that hold offices like the Attorney General of
Canada that they will be making decisions not based on political
considerations but based on a fundamental understanding of the law
based on a fundamental understanding about how we maintain the fundamental
tenants of our democracy and are constantly vigilant on that.
So would I have changed anything that I have done?
I will not change my actions.
I will not make decisions that aren't based on principles or the values that I have
always embraced and I think that that will resonate with
Canadians and to my former caucus colleagues in the Liberal Party but
generally to all people that are wanting to become members of parliament leading
up into October.
There is a way that we can actually engage in political
discussions in a different way and that we can be guided by principles and
values and I understand the nature of politics and I am not discounting
political parties but we need to make decisions based on principle, we need to
make decisions with all Canadians in mind.
And maybe we can just be a little less partisan when we make those decisions because when we
make decisions with our partisan hats off we make better and longer-lasting
more sustainable solutions and bring forward ideas about how we can combat
the important issues that are facing us.
All right, I'll leave it there.
Thank you so much for making time for us, Ms. Wilson Raybould, really appreciate it.
Thank you very much.