OTTAWA – Former Canadian Prosecutor, Jody Wilson-Raybould, in the House of Representatives Committee of Justice, 30-day-old former Canadian legal policy shook Wednesday night.
Wilson-Raybould said the prime minister and his senior officials were urging a SNC-Lavalin engineering company to pressure a criminal trial.
Here are more discussing exchanges Then, between the question-answer questions between Wilson-Raybould and MP parties.
Why was the Justice Minister and Attorney General Generated?
Lisa Raitt (conservative party): do you think that the record is about being excluded as a general attorney regarding the ongoing CNC prosecution?
Jody Wilson-Raybould: Thank you for your question and I will be very careful.
Raitt: I understand.
Wilson-Raybould: I think they can talk about my thinking processes, since January 7, they swore to me as Minister of Veterans' Ministries. I think because of my opinion, I think the reason why I was pushing for Justice Minister and Attorney General was probably a decision I would not have taken with the DPA on SNC. As I said, with the Prime Minister who raised my concerns and with Gerry Butts and my opinions, they were denied. I can not talk since I thought.
General integrity of the Attorney General's Office in the future:
Raitt: I would like to know that the independence of the existing lawyer's office is now disappearing, according to the current General Procurator, informed about the decision of the SNC-Lavalin retention.
Wilson-Raybould: While I was a general attorney for four months, notwithstanding the inadequate political pressure, I was confident that interference was the role of the main attorney, whether I took a decision or not. No law on the CNC rule will be imposed. So I knew I was not an attorney anymore, that would not happen. I was worried I was removed as a general attorney, perhaps that was not the case … I was worried and knowing that I was in my new role, I was still sitting around the cabinet desk, and there was a directive that came into the newspaper, I immediately left the closet.
The decision to deny the agreement against the disclosure of political interference:
Murray Rankin (NDP): How can the Canadians believe, as I have done, to make another conclusion, but rather to interfere politically with our main independent attorney as an independent attorney?
Wilson-Raybould: … I look for today's testimony. And as a result of my testimony, I made a continuous effort in these four months trying to confuse my Canadian discretion in the Canadian attorney's office. It was not appropriate.
Rankin: … It seems to be a person, when you see a sensible person erasing your role, you will not change your mind because you do not want to make persistent and consistent efforts, even if you did not change yourself. You were appointed as your general proxy. … Why do not you change yourself?
Wilson-Raybould: I did not intend to change my opinion, to read the 13th chapter I was able to make an invitation to negotiate the negotiation agreement with SNC for the public court that was directed to the board of directors. (Director of the Public Prosecutor's Office), in order to make the appropriate provision for the negotiation of an agreement with the negligence of the SNC. I made comments and sessions about my staff members and political staff. I was committed to meeting before the 17th of September, and from the people we know, my decision-making process is taken into account from various points of view … In my opinion, considering all the information, for those who know me again, I will not change myself.
Work-related injuries have been debated as a factor in deciding SNC-Lavalin's decision:
Jennifer O & Connell (Liberal): It seemed to me that this could be a very useful conversation about these kinds of jobs and impacts, but I mentioned here that the Minister (Bill) Morneau and your interview at Home was mentioned in the 19th. You said you mentioned work loss, so what did you feel the conversation was not right for?
Wilson-Raybould: Therefore, as I said, with the first interview with the Prime Minister, I do not think there is a wrong interview with job losses, in the early stages of the SNC, ministers can raise these problems for attorney with general In order to make long-lasting and lasting debates inadequate, it is clear that my decision was not made and the DPA was not being carried out. Apart from the loss of job losses, I had the conversations that were clearly inadequate when political issues such as the Quebec elections were held, as if the election was going to move if SNC wanted to move, such a conversation, a conversation like the secretary of the Private Council, As a whole, they talked about the prime minister, he asked me what would happen to him. In my opinion, they threatened threats and I took them.
Responding directly to the Prime Minister about his political interference:
Ruby Sahota (Liberal): The Prime Minister asked if he had an interference and that his answer was always that it was yours. Is it correct?
Wilson-Raybould: that's not exactly what I've said. I raised the backdrop for the comments made by the Prime Minister and the Secretary and I know that this has been reported to the media, but this is not said. I asked the correct question after the comments made by the Prime Minister, the election and membership of the papain, "would my decision as a general attorney be interfered with my decision?". And I strongly advocated not doing this, so my direct question to the Prime Minister.
Sahota: And the decision was always yours, right?
Wilson-Raybould: he did not say that. He said: "No, no, no, that's not what I'm doing."
Sahota: But you mentioned the reminder statement, when it was during the most general attorney, you acknowledged that it was always the decision.
Wilson-Raybould: Percent Percent understands my role as a general attorney and my decision and decision whether to give me a directive.
Waiting for another shoe to release:
Raitt: When you talk to Gerry Butts or Katie Telford or the secretary of the private council, do you talk to the Prime Minister's full authority in discussions with you?
Raitt: … Do you think the Prime Minister or any of the Prime Minister's offices were allowed to say what to do to direct the director of the councilors?
Wilson-Raybould: Nora. I was the final, and the general attorney made the final decision, whether it is considered a prosecutor who has not done anything about a specific accusation.
Raitt: … All this seems to me, if possible, of all those comments and continued pressure at the end of your day to tempt your work, confuse it or put it in your position. What is this reasonable hypothesis?
Wilson-Raybould: I will not talk to other people's minds. They told me that the level of anxiety was higher, and in 19, when I talked with the secretary, I will end my speech. And I clearly remember the secretary with this interview: "I'm waiting for the other shoe. Descent." What I think is that, or my comments can speak on their own.
What he says and can not say:
Wilson-Raybould: I am not free to discuss any issue about the CN and the Administration Agreements.
Raitt: And for clarity, you can not say what you talked about with your prime minister with your meetings in Vancouver on February 11th?
Wilson-Raybould: I can not.
Raitt: And why did you say why the resignation cabinet?
Wilson-Raybould: I can not.
Raitt: And we discussed with the cabinet that was debated on February 19.
Wilson-Raybould: I can not.
Raitt: If you have been able to evaluate the ability to speak about this communal conversation and be able to release it from trusted office or privileges, should you return and give testimony?
Wilson-Raybould: I would like to be.
With the approval of the Government to become a member minister:
Randy Boissonneault (Liberal): Once confirmed on that day (cabinet mix), accepting this position, you have confirmed your trust in the government. Why?
Wilson-Raybould: … I decided on a very conscious decision that the Prime Minister offered me the task and, yes, it is a great honor, I do not understand anyone. I decided to take the first minister in his speech. I trusted him. I had confidence with him. For this reason, I was continuing to move around the cabinet table with concerns about SNC, as the Prime Minister took in his speech.
Boissonneault: So, the prayer you took on January 13 confirmed the government's trust. Do you trust the Prime Minister today?
Wilson-Raybould: I'll say this. And I do not talk about why I resigned, what they say: I resigned from the office, I had no confidence sitting around the table, sitting at the cabinet. That's why I resigned.
Why did he not search for external legal advice and why he did not resign.
O & # 39; Connell: If you had it yourself, your office, the Prime Minister's office, the prosecution, seemed to dissent or opinion differences. Why would it not be reasonable … what would be the exception to create another opinion, an external legal opinion?
Wilson-Raybould: I did not need legal advice outside, I did not need the office of the Prime Minister, I needed an external legal advice. That is inadequate. However, I will talk about what you talk about your talks and prosecutions about Mathieu Bouchard, because they are not the director of the court, I can not wonder why he would bring it, how he would know, how he got that information. It is not very suitable for the members of the Prime Minister's office, and my staff or all members of my department could reflect on conversations, have serious concerns, and at that moment I made and still worries about how to get this information and about it.
O & # 39; Connell: If you thought this information was so fit on September 16, did you say resignation? If you're going forward and moving forward, do not you think about upholding?
Wilson-Raybould: I did not give up again. I was, in my opinion, my job as a general attorney. The fundamental principle of the prosecution, the protection of the constitutional one and the independence of our judgment. That's my job. That was my job, but as a general attorney. And when I was as a general prosecutor, I had to guarantee that the conductor's independence and discourse were not used.
O & # 39; Connell: Are you still confident of the Prime Minister?
Wilson-Raybould: I do not know how important this question is.
Following the desire of the Prime Minister to follow the historic priority:
Nathan Cullen (NDP): Was your testimony here today that a general attorney has never used a specific directive in a specific case, as in SNC-Lavalin? Is it right?
Wilson-Raybould: that's right.
Cullen: Therefore, when this tool is not very rare, it has never been applied to the secretary of the secretary of administration, who has taken responsibility for the use of this tool. They asked them something basically historical.
Wilson-Raybould: A general attorney has never given a specific direction to a specific accusation, nor has he even sent a lawyer to the lawsuit or prosecutor of that country. It would be historical. For the first time
Cullen: So, in this case, what was being asked in this case is something extraordinary, that you should do something unprecedented.
About legality of the agreements of the prosecutors:
Cullen: I call the ability to search for one of these abilities, plea deals, I'm not a lawyer. These outings. They can not do political reasons, is that correct?
Wilson-Raybould: that's right.
Cullen: It's illegal, indeed, that you have made a decision based on political motives, is it correct?
Wilson-Raybould: It would be illegal to do that.
Cullen: Is it illegal for a general attorney to intervene in one case?
Wilson-Raybould: in my opinion it is not illegal. It is very inadequate in the context of the commented comments that the nature of the pressure, depending on the specific issues that are posed, is inadequate and avoid a commitment or imposition of a general attorney.
The secretary of the Private Council Secretary, Michael Wernick:
Elizabeth May (Green Party): Civil services are considered to be unusual agents. … until September 17, you have described a meeting that you asked for a Prime Minister on another issue. It was believed that he was a sudden meeting, which is why I believe that he did not expect the secretary of the supposed council to meet with the first minister, is that correct?
Wilson-Raybould: I did not expect, but I would say that I was here, I did not ask.
May: So, in the context of the pressure to be applied and the political concerns that are being raised, I will present a positive statement and you will agree, but the appropriate secretary of the council's office is to assist the general attorney, since it is dangerous here on earth, a retrospective. political interference Civil service work is a participatory and good advice. Do you think the secretary of the private council acted correctly in this case when anyone applies political pressure?
Wilson-Raybould: I do not think it was appropriate, that's why I was greatly surprised that the Quebec-based debates and the General Assembly were taking place at SNC.
May: Do you think that the secretary of the private council would put the appearance of the Minister of Justice under the pressure of confidence in his safety?
Wilson-Raybould: Honestly, I do not think the answer to the question.
• Email: firstname.lastname@example.org | Twitter: mariedanielles