Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 13 of 13
View Louis Plamondon Profile
BQ (QC)
Something has been bothering me since these discussions started. In eight days after returning from a trip, the minister decides to paint yourself into a corner: she decides to start a prosecution and accepts no advice.
You offer her the option of seeking an outside legal opinion and you tell her she can even discuss the case directly with the prosecutor. However, she accepts no advice and stubbornly maintains that she will go to trial.
A little later, SNC-Lebanon loses $1.6 billion in three months, and its stock falls 35%. That doesn't prompt her either to consider whether she might perhaps reconsider the matter.
Did she give you a reason why she remained so resolute in her decision, not wanting to listen to anyone?
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
And do you know why the Attorney General who preceded you did not issue such directives to the Director of Public Prosecutions? Do you know why?
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you.
Have you had discussions with Ms. Wilson-Raybould after she was transferred to the Department of Veterans Affairs? Have you talked to her about her transfer?
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
You are very close to her. Earlier, you told us that you held a position for eight years where you were close to her, before she became Minister of Justice. I don't remember which position exactly you held then.
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
About her transfer from the position of Attorney General and Minister of Justice to that of Minister of Veterans Affairs.
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I've been listening to our discussions for the past while. I have before me the agenda for today's meeting, which states that we're here to discuss the request to study the reports of political interference in a criminal prosecution by the Prime Minister's Office.
The Prime Minister or a member of his office allegedly politically interfered with the former attorney general of Canada. I wonder how we can shed led on this situation without hearing from the person who held the position of attorney general of Canada at the time of the events in question.
I have two things in mind.
I see that you're having a discussion, Mr. Chair. Would you prefer to suspend the meeting?
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
Okay.
A meeting was called today so that we could study the reports that the Prime Minister's Office politically interfered with the former attorney general of Canada.
With all due respect, the Liberals' proposal seems to be a red herring. As one of my Conservative colleagues said, the Liberals want to provide law courses on the Shawcross doctrine and explain the remediation agreements to us. I understand that this came into effect in the fall, but I think that everyone can read and learn about it. They're proposing that we hear from three witnesses who won't be able to speak about the issue at hand, namely, the reports of political interference.
In this whole matter, I have two concerns in mind. First, I can picture the nearly 4,000 Quebec workers whose jobs are at stake as a result of discussions between the attorney general's representative in court and counsel for SNC-Lavalin. These 4,000 workers and their families are indirect, and perhaps even direct victims of the situation. The situation may not be resolved because our Prime Minister acted in a somewhat amateurish way with regard to the former attorney general and because he doesn't want to release her from her solicitor-client privilege obligations so that we can hear from her.
Of all the witnesses on the list, the one witness we should hear from is Jody Wilson-Raybould. I don't see how else we can start. I was reading the names of the witnesses and listening to our discussions. I felt as if I were preparing for a trip without anyone telling me where I'm going. Since I don't know where I'm going, I'm bringing my swimsuit, shorts, jeans, suit and everything I need for fishing and hunting. We'll hear from a number of witnesses, but we'll always be beating around the bush.
Why don't we have Jody Wilson-Raybould here? She was the attorney general of Canada. According to reports, she was the victim of political interference by the Prime Minister's Office. Once we've heard from Ms. Wilson-Raybould and she has told us that certain people have said, done or requested one thing or another, we can prepare a more relevant list of witnesses.
Currently, it's a real hunting trip. In my humble opinion, the Liberal motion is a red herring. The Conservative motion gives me the impression that we want to put SNC-Lavalin on trial. However, that's not the committee's role.
SNC-Lavalin committed fraud. Some executives have even already paid for it. If there are others, they'll continue to pay, and that's fine. The people who committed fraud must be penalized. Should the company be penalized? Yes. That said, a remediation process exists. We'll see whether an agreement will be reached. Last week, Mr. Lametti said that an agreement was still possible. I'm keeping my fingers crossed, not for me or SNC-Lavalin, but for the workers and their families who need these jobs. We're talking about 4,000 families who will be affected by unemployment because we can't reach an agreement to maintain their jobs.
The Prime Minister acted in an amateurish way. He's refusing to allow the former attorney general of Canada to explain the situation. I find this shocking and worrisome.
I don't want to carry out the work of the prosecutor in this case, counsel for SNC-Lavalin or the Ethics Commissioner. They each have their mandate. I think that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights must study the reports of political interference by the Prime Minister's Office. To do so, we should hear from Jody Wilson-Raybould first.
Results: 1 - 13 of 13

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data