QUESTION PERIOD — Prime Minister’s Office
SNC-Lavalin
March 21, 2019
Honourable senators, I want to thank my leader for allowing me the opportunity of taking his spot at Question Period today.
My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
Senator Harder, since the SNC-Lavalin scandal exploded into view after the demotion and subsequent resignation of Jody Wilson-Raybould, the Prime Minister has claimed that his interventions and those of his staff were necessary because 9,000 jobs were at stake and that it was his job to protect them.
Yesterday, we learned that this is not true. In an interview with the Canadian Press, the CEO of SNC-Lavalin Group said he never cited the protection of 9,000 jobs as a reason the company should be granted a remediation agreement to avoid a criminal trial. And I quote:
This thing that somehow they’re going to be unemployed is not true . . .
That needs repeating. Not true.
There are those who say when you speak an untruth, you are lying.
Further to that, Senator Harder, the Clerk of the Privy Council Office, Mr. Wernick, threatened Ms. Wilson-Raybould last September, warning that SNC-Lavalin will likely be moving to London —
Colleagues, let’s get through this. Let’s listen and get through it. Thank you.
Thank you, Your Honour.
Further, Senator Harder, the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Wernick, threatened Ms. Wilson-Raybould last September, warning that SNC-Lavalin will likely be moving to London if they do not get the deferred prosecution agreement.
Now we find out from the CEO of SNC-Lavalin that there was never any such danger. He told the Canadian Press that there were no plans to move the company’s headquarters to London, no plans.
Senator Harder, I hope that you agree that Canadians deserve to know the truth, because it’s becoming abundantly clear that Canadians are not going to get it from the Prime Minister —
Please get to your question.
“Will you” is part of a question.
Will you agree today to add your voice to the many others and ask the Prime Minister to waive attorney-client privilege and cabinet confidence to allow Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott to speak openly so Canadians can learn the truth?
No.
Senator Harder, a growing number of courageous people such as Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott have paid a high price to protect both the independence of our justice system and the integrity of Parliament. They have done so at great personal cost and, in doing so, have earned the respect of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
I am wondering if just for a moment, Senator Harder, you would put down your talking points, “yes” and “no,” and be transparent with us. Do you, Senator Harder, share the concerns of many Canadians that there is a cover-up — here maybe a yes-or-no answer might be good — going on, and will you do everything within your power to ensure that the truth comes out, yes or no?
I thank the honourable senator for his scripted question. My notes allude me, but let me respond.
This government has taken unprecedented steps to ensure that the former Minister of Justice and Attorney General were able to speak before the standing committee by issuing an Order in Council, which is unprecedented. I think the last time was some 50 years ago. That precedent is a token of the government’s commitment to ensuring that the voices of those affected are presented before the parliamentary process in the other place. The honourable senator will know there were a number of other witnesses from the government, both former and serving officials.
The senator will also know that the Prime Minister, in an openness to ensure that there is appropriate investigation of these issues, called on the Ethics Commissioner and compliance officer of the other place to undertake an examination, and that is underway.
Further, the Prime Minister has sought the advice of the former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice and Attorney General as a special adviser to advise on the machinery of government issues that have been raised by this, as well as the relationship issues that are appropriate between an Attorney General, her staff, and the staff and members of cabinet.
My question is also for the government leader, which concerns the former president of the Treasury Board, the Honourable Jane Philpott, who resigned earlier this month. In an interview with Maclean’s this morning, Dr. Philpott stated:
I felt that there was evidence of an attempt to politically interfere with the justice system in its work on the criminal trial that has been described by some as the most important and serious prosecution of corporate corruption in modern Canadian history.
She went on to say:
I believe the former attorney general has further points to make. I believe that I have further issues of concern that I’m not free to share.
Senator, Dr. Philpott says there’s much more to the story that should be told. Isn’t that why your government has shut down the work of the house Justice Committee — to prevent the truth coming to light? If your answer is no, could you explain how the committee could conclude without having all of the information that other committee members felt was necessary and that Canadians deserve to know?
I thank the honourable senator for her question. Let me repeat that the Government of Canada has taken unprecedented steps to ensure that the former Minister of Justice and Attorney General has been able to speak to this issue for over four and a half hours of testimony; that the government has, as I’ve indicated already several times, initiated other processes to ensure that appropriate fora are provided to those who have concerns on this matter, and those processes are underway and should be respected.
Finally, I should indicate I have utmost regard and respect for the two former ministers involved, but the government is the government of the day who is intent on ensuring that Canadians are provided with the benefits of the budget that was tabled earlier this week, the subject matter of which is yet to have any time in this place or the other.
As you say, the former Attorney General did speak for four hours. That is a lengthy period, but I think there’s a lot more to this. Dr. Philpott’s interview and her words, “I believe that the former Attorney General has further points to make,” are what concerns us, that she needs to have the venue to do so.
At this time, the Justice Committee has shut down. There is no place in the house. We have an opportunity here in the Senate through the motion brought forward by my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, to give both Dr. Philpott and the former Attorney General a forum to speak their truth fully and freely. Dr. Philpott said: “I believe we actually owe it to Canadians as politicians to ensure that they have the truth.”
Senator Harder, do you agree with Dr. Philpott that the Canadians we serve should be given the whole truth? If so, will you support a Senate study into this matter?
I thank the honourable senator for her question. It gives me the opportunity to remind the honourable senator that I’ve spoken to the motion to which she refers and expressed my views, which continue to be my views. As I said in that speech, it will be for the Senate of Canada to determine whether the Senate of Canada undertakes yet another forum. That is a matter we have yet to conclude on.
Having said that, I would also like to reiterate what the former Attorney General and Minister of Justice made clear in her testimony, which was that at no time did she feel that any law was broken, but she did indicate that, in her view, there was undue pressure. What she also acknowledged was that there was no breaking of law. Those other individuals from whom she felt undue pressure testified with their perspective.
Finally, the other truth, of course, is that no direction was given by the Prime Minister to the Minister of Justice as to how this case ought to conclude.
