QUESTION PERIOD — Prime Minister’s Office
SNC-Lavalin
April 9, 2019
My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
Senator Harder, the SNC-Lavalin scandal has obviously been dogging the government for over two months now. When the Minister of Justice appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs at the height of the crisis, I asked him whether he had taken the measures necessary to preserve and protect all of the documents, emails, texts and other information shared between the players in the scandal. His answer was vague. He basically never answered my question.
Senator Harder, did the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister’s Office take measures to protect all of the evidence in this scandal involving political interference in the judicial process?
I thank the honourable senator for his question. Without accepting the premise of the question, the Government of Canada is subject to protection and preservation of documents to which it is faithfully adhering.
Senator Harder, if the government did protect all of the evidence, could you tell us on what date those measures were taken by the Justice Minister’s office and the PMO?
Let me reiterate that all ministerial offices and the government as a whole operate within strict provisions of information preservation. Those rules and obligations have been and are in place.
Honourable senators, my question is also for the Government Leader in the Senate. The second page of the letter from the Prime Minister’s lawyer to the Honourable Andrew Scheer states it was entirely false that the Prime Minister had been informed by Jody Wilson-Raybould that his actions were inappropriate and amounted to political interference. However, last Wednesday, just three days after his lawyer sent this letter to Mr. Scheer, the Prime Minister admitted in the other place what he had previously denied, that Ms. Wilson-Raybould had indeed warned him against politically interfering with her role as Attorney General during their meeting on September 17. Senator, could you please explain this discrepancy by the Prime Minister’s own admission in the other place?
I thank the honourable senator for her question. I think it’s important that, as the Government Representative in the Senate, I not speak to what lawyers representing the Prime Minister may or may not have sent. What I can speak to is the interaction between the Prime Minister and the former Attorney General. The Prime Minister has expressed his view and the former Attorney General has expressed hers, and I believe that those speak for themselves.
I think the reason why we have more questions is because there are more questions than answers that have been sort of convoluted by some of these admissions and timelines and whatnot. Ms. Wilson-Raybould told the House of Commons Justice Committee about the September 17 meeting:
At that point, the Prime Minister jumped in, stressing that there is an election in Quebec and that “and I am an MP in Quebec—the member for Papineau”.
Senator Harder, does the Prime Minister acknowledge that this part of Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s testimony is also true, that he raised the Quebec election in conjunction with SNC-Lavalin?
Again, I believe the Prime Minister’s comments stand on their own and are an expression of his views. Let me simply again quote, as I did earlier, former Minister Wilson-Raybould where she states:
For my part, I do not believe I have anything further to offer to a formal process regarding this specific matter . . . .
