Jody Wilson-Raybould talked about the SNC-Lavalin debate on the commission's House Judiciary on February 27. In a major public statement in the court, former prime minister and former attorney proved that he was not pressured to prevent the Montreal company from suing a case of bribery. Below is a full text of its open statement.
Gilakas & # 39; la. Thanks to the Chair of the Lord and the Justice Committee to extend our current testimony. We are in the old Algonquin territory.
Between September and December I had a period of four months between September and December 2018, in which I lived within the government, a strong and lasting effort for many people, as the Canadian Prosecutor General's Office considered inappropriate efforts in prosecutorial discretionary politics. To ensure the Public Prosecution Agreement established by SNC-Lavalin. These events involve 11 people (including myself and my political workers): the Prime Minister's Office, the Private Council Office and the Minister of Finance. It includes conversations, phone calls, emails, and text messages. Approximately 10 phone calls and 10 meetings were specifically about SNC-Lavalin, and / or were my staff.
In interviews, the need for interference with SNC-Lavalin was indicated, the consequences were and the threats were hidden, because SNC did not make available to SNC. The interviews ended on December 19, 2018, with a telephone conversation with the secretary of the private secretary, I will give you an important detail.
A few weeks later, on January 7, 2019, I informed the Prime Minister of the Justice Ministry and the role of the Canadian Prosecutor General. In most of these conversations, I've made contemporary and accurate remarks: notes, as well as my clear memory, based on other documentation.
The purpose of my testimony is to determine the details of my communication in the Community, as well as for all Canadians. However, before doing so, leave comments.
First of all, thank patiently for the Canadian we want to thank, since the story was fired on February 7 in the Globe and in the World … Thank you, especially, for all the countries that have been deployed. I appreciate the messages. I read them.
Secondly, the role of the Public Prosecutor's Office – AG regulates the judicial procedure in accordance with the Directorate General of the Public Prosecutor's Office. In general, this authority is regulated by DPP, but it is directed by AG's DPP directives in specific provisions or accusations.
It shows that AG uses discretionary prosecutors, individually and independently. These are not cabinet decisions. It should be taken into account that the cabinet colleagues pay attention to the AG, which are important reflections on public policies relevant to deciding how to influence the prosecutor. It is not possible to deepen the issues of the AG, since it is not necessary to consider the reflections of political parties, for example; After deciding the decision of the AG to change its decision in a few months; or propose that the collision with the Prime Minister be avoided.
In other words, the rest of my testimony involved about 10 phone calls, 10-person meetings and emails and text messages to make a policy of politically interfering with SNC matters. Deferred agreement.
The story began on September 4, 2016. My COS and I were sent away when I sent an article called "Proceedings of the Supreme Court" (article 13 of Director of the Public Prosecutor's Office) "Negotiating the invitation to negotiate. SNC Lavalin's repair agreement", prepared by Director of Public Prosecutor Kathleen Roussel . The only part of this notice I will notify will be: "The DPP's invitation to negotiate is not in this case and the PPSC will not make an announcement". As with all the episodes 13 notifications – The Director provides this information as the Public Prosecutor considers fit.
In other words, the Director decided not to negotiate a settlement agreement with SNC Lavalin. Afterwards, I spoke to the staff of the ministerial offices about this decision and made more internal work, and I was accustomed to the usual custom, in which, in my opinion, I received many of the 13 sections that I had received as a general procedure. In other words, I immediately put into operation, in my department and the minister's office, a thorough analysis and analysis of the subject.
Two days later, on September 6, we received some of the first DPA communications outside of our department. Ben Chin, the Managing Director of the Morneau Workers, sent and spoke to my chief. I'd like to talk about SNC and what we could do if it were to deal with it. If they did not say the DPA, they will go to Montréal and they will be in Québec elections right now, so we can not do that. They have a great meeting on Tuesday and said this bad news may be public.
That day, my Senior Employee exchanged email messages to my staff [Francois Giroux and Emma Carver] To that end, he was advised that Nathalie Drouin's Attorney General worked at something (he talked about the subject), and my staff [Emma Carver and Gregoire Webber] A note about A's role in PPSC was written.
On that same day or in a single day I met with the Prime Minister on a priority issue, and as soon as I got there in the country. This request, after all, was held on September 17, as reported by the media, between the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister.
On September 7, my main employee talked to my chief about the telephone, about the call received by Ben Chin and the Secretary said that he said. The delegate thought that my boss had some options (for example, Kathleen Roussel called him a computer, made an external review of the decision, etc.). The same day, I received a note about my employees – the role of AG – also shared with Mark Marks and Amy Archer at the PMO.
The same day, Francois G. and Emma met with my deputy secretary. S stories. 13 DM notes were read, but DM did not want to give a copy of the note.
September 8 – He shared with me the sketcher's role of my secretary with me, and on the following day I was clear about what my staff had compared to the secretary on the aspects of an option in his note.
The continuation of the interview between Ben Chin and my staff (FG), which occurred on September 11, Mrs. Chin said that PPSC had not been able to access PPAE in a DPA. They said they did not get an DPA. Mr Chin remarked that SNC, after being advised by Frank Iacobucci's legal adviser, said they were seen as a negotiation when they agreed with the SNC.
It is clear that I did not get in touch directly with the Prime Minister, PMO officials or PCOs on this matter. Except for China discussions, the focus of communications was within the DOJ.
This will change on September 16. My Senior Employees called it by telephone with Mathieu Bouchard and Elder Marques PMO. SNC wanted to discuss them. They told SNC that he had made more shipments to Crown, and "some are soft but not much." They understand that the fiscal Crown wants to negotiate an agreement, but the director does not understand.
They understand what limits can be and they can not be directed directly, but think our Vice Minister (Justice) that the PPSC can say "we think we should get advice about it." They think they think they can find a fair resolution here. The next commission of the SNC said on Thursday (September 20). They also referred to the Quebec context of election. Ask my leaders about the outsider advice idea about PPSC and ask if this suggestion is open. They wanted to know what DM could do.
As a response, my COS highlighted the potential concerns about the independence and potential independence of prosecutorial prosecutors. Mr. Bouchard and Mr Marques were told they did not want to cross the line, but asked my President to follow this question straight with me.
It must be clear, I explained clearly between the 1st and 4th of September. When my staff regularly organized me, this topic was first created and produced by materials.
Also, I also set up my point of view at this point, when I made my department, my minister's office and when I did it, I was forced to take DPP's decision in this case and I decided to look for an DPA. Upon reaching this point of view, I discussed several issues on this matter, with my secretary, in my opinion, worried that I was uneasy about the appropriateness of the communications that we had received with my deputy deputy. The Department also suggested concerns about the options it suggested.
On September 17: DM said the Treasury said they wanted to try to understand Kathleen's influence, in which case we did not do anything. Due to the potential concerns raised by interviews, I discussed that day.
That day (September 17), I was with my partner a couple of weeks ago. Even when I went to the Secretariat of the Council of Privileges.
When the meeting was not discussed about the problems of the SNC and DPA, the PM immediately raised the problem.
The Prime Minister asks me to help me – to find a solution to SNC – if this DPA was not mentioned, a lot of jobs would be lost and SNC will start from Montreal.
In response, I explained the law and what I have to do and what is the origin of the directives or accusations established by the Directorate General of Tax Law. I said I did my care and I realized in SNC and I did not take the decision of DPP.
In future, PM further confirmed his concerns. Then I explained how it happened and I received a 13-note note from DPP earlier in September and I looked at that topic. As I said, I became clear that it was very clear, and I am not in this case to prepare a directive, it was not appropriate.
The PM again mentioned the potential loss of labor and moving to SNC. Then, in my accident, the secretary began to explain the need for the DPA, he said "there will be a meeting on Thursday (September 20) with stock holders" … "it would be possible to go to London" … "and there is an election in Québec- n soon "…
At that time, PM emphasized that there is a Quebec election, "and I am a Quebec player, a member of Papineau."
I mentioned and asked the PM, I would do a conversation with my secretary and secretary, but conversations would not change my mind
I took it enough. My answer – and I remember this strongly – asked to ask the question directly when I was looking at the eye: "Politically you're interfering with my role / my decision as AG? I would point out against him."
The Prime Minister said "No, No, No, we need to find a solution." The secretary told me that he spoke to my secretary and that the Director told me he could speak.
I responded that I did not say it, I would not be right. In summary, I became clear to the secretary and the PM, I had a conversation with the DM options and my position.
As a result of this debate, I agreed with the PM and my talk with the secretary and secretary, but the conversations did not change me. I said my staff and my officials did not have permission to speak to PPSC.
At last, we discussed the other issue that I wanted to discuss. I left the meeting and asked my staff what they said: SNC / DPA.
On September 19, I got together with the secretary during the PM. The meeting was sudden in my office. The workers brought about labor losses, not even Quebec's elections or a Montreal MP. He said he has not seen the release s.13. He said that SNC SNC understands that DPP continues and that they want more information. He said "Iacobucci did not chop the violin". He cited the date of September 20 (allegedly a shareholder meeting reference), and nothing from DPP. He said PM was very concerned that the limits of my AG and DPP role are. PM informed me that the role of AGC is well known.
Again, I told the Secretary that he was not telling the Director to contact him and I did not mention the DPA. I obtained SNC when they sent me a letter that they expressed their concerns, public interest arguments would be acceptable and should be sent directly to DPP.
Later that day, COS had a telephone call with Elder Marques and Mathieu Bouchard PMO. We wanted to make an update about the DPA "because we do not have a good deal of time". I gave a brief summary to the PM / Secretary.
The DPP's "informal departure" idea has been raised. My COS said she did not know how to feel comfortable, because she was looking and probably had a political interference. It was true whether they were the same as those of AG, but even if they were their employees or DM. My COS said "yes" and directly called me directly with me. They said "we will meet again and we will return to you".
However, on September 19, when I talked to Morneau, when we were home. He stressed the need to save jobs again, and I told the SNC office that the commitments made by the SNC should stop, they were inadequate.
They did not stop On September 20, my COS-Chin and Justin To-made phone calls, both of SNC and DPA's Finance Minister. At this time, there was a step towards communicating with myself or my main staff about the matter of SNC. We did not hear anyone again until the age of 18, when Mathieu Bouchard called me to my COS and asked me about the legal opinion about DPP's decision not to extend an invitation to negotiate an DPA.
This would occasionally be a recurring theme in one of the PMO's messages – the DPP's decision to make an external review. The next day, SNC presented a request to the National Court to resolve DPP's decision not to enter into a recovery treaty.
In my opinion, it is absolutely necessary to restate with the idea that I can speak or intervene with DPP or an external review. The matter was in front of the courts, and a judge asked for the discretion of DPP.
However, on October 26, 2018, when my main employee talked about Mathieu Bouchard, it was told to date that SNC decided to review the DPP's decision that they were judged at the National Court, probably when AG resolved or resolved an opinion on that question, He responded that he was interested in an outer opinion idea. He could not get a legal outward opinion, if DPP had correctly used his discretion, and then the same request, AG was able to intervene and sought a stable procedure because he was waiting for a judicial opinion.
Most talked to Mathieu – he told me there were some options and we needed to find a solution
My COS said that, of course, they perceive it as an interference and question itself as the DPP's decision. Mathieu said, six months after the election, SNC has announced to auction it out of Canada, it's bad.
He said "we can have the best world politics, but we must choose again."
Everyone knows that this is the decision of the AG, but be sure that all the options are being followed. Mathieu said, at the end of the day, AG is not comfortable, it's okay. Just "does not want the doors closed." Jessica said she was always happy to talk to me directly.
In mid-November, I asked the PMO to meet with Mathieu Bouchard and Elder Marques, to discuss the issue that took place on November 22. This talk was very lengthy – I would say about half an hour. In fact, as I said, I realized that this was the meeting. I did not give a directive if there was no DPA of the SNC.
Most talked to Mathieu – he told me there were some options and we needed to find a solution. I took it through the DPP Law – Section 15/10 – and prosecutorial independence was a constitutional principle. And they're interfering. I spoke with notes from section 13, and they never received it, but they reminded me they were received in September.
M and E – continued to keep the case … talking about … I'm sure that my decision is not … we could hire a fertile person to advise. They were "Tire throwers". I did not say so. My mind was completed and they had to stop.
At this moment I will briefly comment on the state of my mind. My role in AG, when I received a decision from DPP in September, made a review on the subject, was given a decision on the DPA and the Prime Minister was informed. The Secretary-General also asked for additional steps, such as meeting with the secretary, for example.
In my opinion, communications and efforts to change my mind should be stopped. Several officials also reminded me that they should consider the political party, which was clearly wrong. … We have a system based on respect for the rule of law, the prosecution function, and the lawyers, especially in a discreet manner and in the exercise of their powers. In our discussion, when appropriate, in the government policies system focused on the debate among former people, consistent and persistent efforts are also faced with judicial proceedings on the same subject, and in the face of a clear decision by DPP, AG efforts are intensifying and intensifying, .
However, that happened. On December 5th 2014, I met Gerry Butts. We both met.
I wanted to talk about some things: SNC and my staff and my staff to collect tremendous people. At the end of the meeting I thought I needed myself to talk about myself, and the commitments were inadequate. Gerry interviewed and told SNC how to solve a solution that needed to be found. I did not say it and I made references to PI and JR. I told him more, I gave him Clerk's unique and thought-provoking solution, but that was not the idea.
Gerry talked to me about how Harper created the statute because he did not like the law (Attorney's Law Lawyer). We have a lawyer saying something like that … On December 7 I received a letter, dated December 6, on the 15th of October, with the letter from the CEO Director of SNC-Lavalin. I responded to the 6th Letter of the PM, due to the litigation before the courts, I can not discuss it. Decision again: It was an DPA for DPP, that is, outside of my office.
This will lead us to the final events of the chronology, and the last step of the PMO's efforts in my experience to interfere in this issue. On December 18, 2018, my COS made an urgent call with Gerry Butts and Katie Telford to discuss with SNC. I want to know if I am here to find the solution. As they said, the problem seemed to be worse and I did not do anything. The next day the PM and the Secretary were called to this announcement.
I will read the transcripts of the most important sections of the text following the conversation between my COS and I.
Jessica: basically, they want a solution. There is no news You want to keep an outsourced query whether or not you review DPP's decision, in this case. … they told me that they would be interferences.
Gerry said: "Jess, here is no solution that causes no interference." At last, finally, they are asking what you are doing. I do not care about PPSC's independence. Katie "we do not want to discuss more legends". "We are not as lawyers we are having," but here's a solution. "
MOJAG: Why were things left? …
JP: So clearly. Of course, of course, I would know about the comb (check) and said tonight that they were "tires" of more people. When the secretary came out I left. But tomorrow and tomorrow they want to call the next day after tomorrow afternoon from tomorrow. I told him, of course, that he would be happy to speak to your boss! Certainly, it seems that the idea that the SCC ex-judge is holding is pretty hard. Katie T thinks she's covering it in the business community and the legal community, and let's say that PM is doing something. "If Jody were nervous, of course, we'll write people of all kinds online by writing to OpEds, because they're doing what they're doing."
On December 19, 2019, I made a statement with the exclusive – it was a long call and I made a call at home and I was alone. The day before that happened to my chief of staff, I repeatedly questioned all the interferences and interviews. Here's what the Secretary and I discussed …
The secretary said that he was calling on a prosecutorial prosecution (SNC), where he asked the Prime Minister … he thought about the company committee and the possibility of selling someone else, losing their place and job position.
He said that PP means that everything is inside the legitimacy tool. The secretary said that the PM is pretty well-defined, but why he did not use the DPA route. He said: "I think one way or another will find a way to get it. So, that's the mood and I wanted to know that."
The secretary said he did not know if he called me to call me directly and think about thinking someone else is thinking … you do not know what to do if it is legal or appropriate. She said that PM understands more … to give you advice or give that advice, if you do not want to be more comfortable if you do not want to do anything wrong or frame out … Thanks to me that she was 100 years old. Percent I was not sure I was doing it. Once again, I am sure that I am sure I am in my SNC and DPA views, that is, the independence of the prosecution is a constitutional principle.
In short, I was alert to Clerk's rising concern – and I gave a strange appearance with AG, I can not act in a way and the prosecutions can not act objectively, this is not independent. I can not act in a partial way and I can not motivate myself politically. And all such echoes.
The secretary was asked to explain to the director or about his or her reason. The secretary told me he had to give permission to return to the PM … he told me again about the PM that he was pretty much about and was a bit worried … I asked him worried about it.
The Secretary stated that he was not "loggerheads" to the prime minister and his prosecutor general.
I thanked him for giving me the best advice and if he had not approved the PM's permission to do the job … But I support the Prime Minister from a political interference or a tangible political interference or otherwise.
He again said that there was a bit of roughness about that PM and he was a bit worried … I asked him what he was worried
The secretary admits, but said the PM does not have the power what he wants … all the tools are in the hands, he said. I said Saturday night that I had the thoughts of massacre, but I was sure that the Prime Minister gave me the best advice to protect him and to safeguard the independence of the prosecutor for the constitutional principle.
The secretary said that he was worried about a blow because PM is quite firm … he told me that PM had seen a few hours ago and that is very important to him.
That's when the conversation is over. I did not hear MGn the next day. On January 7, I received a PM call and I was working on a MOJAG. I do not have the details of this call, nor the next communication about the mix, but I would say that I think the subject of SNC. This has denied the case.
January 11, 2019 – Friday before mixing. My prime minister has declared the declarant and said that the mess is going on and he will get a new minister. As part of the interview, the secretary hires that it will be one of the first conferences of SNC Lavalin. In other words, the new minister will be ready to talk to PM. The secretary tells us my chief commander.
My narration remains here. I should like to remind the Commission once and for all about the concerns raised in my concern about my position. That is to say, the Order of 2019-0105 of the Board is governed only by the Canadian Attorney General and, therefore, there is nothing left to free itself from the restrictions applied to communications, I am proud of as Minister of Veterans Affairs and my resignation. post, or resignation for my cabinet. In this period of time, some members of the committee include communications on issues that explore another issue, among other things. The Board of Directors leaves many limitations, especially the Cabinet trust, having the ability to speak freely after having left the Public Prosecutor.
Even though I have some limitations, I have a clear idea that I have had the Commission and everyone today, according to my narrative, and what I know and what was communicated.
I hope, and I hope, the events speak themselves. The Canadians now fully understand that I believe that incidents have created a pressure to intervene in a matter and that pressure or political interference was not appropriate. However, Canadians will be able to judge themselves as much as we have now.
In the end, as I said before, "it has always been that the Canadian Prosecutor General should be a non-partisan party, the principles of decision-making must be transparent and, in that regard, always ready to speak truth."
In other words, I understand the importance of our democratic law and the force of the prosecution. This has been understood by experience. I'm, of course, a lawyer. I had a prosecutor in eastern Vancouver. From this perspective, I take on the essential training and commitment of our scheme system.
But my understanding of the rule of law is also based on the experience of being indigenous and leading. The crown-indigenous history of that country does not respect the history of the law. In fact, one of the urgent necessities of justice and reconciliation today is that in our country's history we have not always confirmed the fundamental values, such as the relationship with indigenous peoples. And I see that the negative impacts of freedom, equality and society can be as soon as possible.
So when I pledged to serve Canadians as your Minister of Justice and Attorney General I came to it with a deeply ingrained commitment to the rule of law and the importance of acting independently of partisan, political, and narrow interests in all matters. When we do not do that, I firmly believe, and know, we get worse as a society.
I will conclude by saying this – I was taught to always be careful of what you say – because you can not take it back – and I was taught to always hold true to your core values and principles and to act with integrity – these are the teachings of my parents, grandparents and community. I come from a long line of matriarchs and I am a truth teller in accordance with the laws and traditions of our Big House – this is who I am and who I will always be.
Gilakas'la / Thank you.