Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The reality is that the Ethics Commissioner found that the Prime Minister improperly used political considerations in attempting to have the Attorney General essentially overrule the director of public prosecutions.
The Prime Minister is saying that it was not the case, that in fact it wasn't political considerations but had to do with something else, namely jobs. My colleague, Mr. Poilievre, I think has completely debunked that notion. I know that my colleague, Ms. May, would do the same thing in a heartbeat if she had an opportunity to do so.
We are at this impasse where we would like to know what were the political considerations noted in Mr. Dion's report and alluded to in some recent interviews of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott.
After the report was made public on August 15, Jody Wilson-Raybould was interviewed by CBC. It was a lengthy interview by Vassy Kapelos. She was asked a number of times about what had happened and for her comments with respect to the report of the Ethics Commissioner.
In response to one of the questions, she made the following very clear: “I would not change the actions that I took. I believe that Canadians want to see, in their public officials, particularly ones that hold offices like the Attorney General of Canada, that they will be making decisions not based on political considerations but based on a fundamental understanding of the law and based on a fundamental understanding about how we maintain the fundamental tenets of our democracy and are constantly vigilante on that.”
She would not make changes to any of her actions because she would not make decisions that were not based on the principles or values she had always embraced. She went on to say later that upholding independence and the rule of law was what she was doing in her role as the Attorney General. A number of times she indicated in other parts of her interview that she had questions with respect to political considerations.
After Ms. Wilson-Raybould's interview, Jane Philpott was interviewed further by Vassy Kapelos and she got more to the point. She talked very specifically about considerations that should and should not be taken into account when decisions are being made.
Kapelos asked her whether there was a conflict for the purposes of benefiting a private corporation: “...the Ethics Commissioner determined but the Prime Minister often speaks about his motivation. If you say that you don't know for sure that it wasn't, what do you think he was motived by?”
Ms. Philpott responded, “I don't think it's motivations that concern people so much as whether or not we hold and regard what is in the best interests of the country and that we hold and regard the very pillars of what our democracy is founded upon. One of those pillars is that our justice system needs to be independent and”—with my own emphasis, Mr. Chair—“politicians who have the desire to further their political career, to ensure that they will win an election, to potentially support those who may have supported them financially or in other ways, those are not the kinds of motivations that should be on politicians' minds when it comes to a criminal matter. It's extremely clear that politicians, the executive and legislative branch, should not interfere with the judicial branch of government.”
Those were Jane Philpott's words, which caused me to wonder what information she has that causes her to have such a strong point of view on what political considerations may or may not have been taken into consideration when decisions were being made.
Mr. Chair, that brings me to the issue of this waiver.
The reason the Ethics Commissioner was unable to get further in terms of the political considerations, other than the four times he clearly noted he believed the Prime Minister, himself or through his staff, was politically interfering, is this. The reason he can't get any more granularity on it is that, as he noted, he was unable to get the relevant information that he wanted.
I'm going to read from his report on page 5, paragraph 14. Actually, I'm going to start with paragraph 13. It says:
In order to gain access to as much relevant information as possible, on March 29, 2019, I instructed legal counsel in our Office to engage with counterparts in the Privy Council Office to request that witnesses be enabled to provide all of their evidence to our Office. Despite several weeks of discussions, the offices remained at an impasse over access to Cabinet confidences.
On May 3, 2019, I raised the matter directly with the Prime Minister during his interview. Through legal counsel, Mr. Trudeau stated that he would consult with the Privy Council Office to see whether the Order in Council could be amended.
Now, the order in council that we're speaking of, of course, is the order in council that was passed by cabinet in order to allow Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott to speak up to a certain point in time, and after that point in time was reached, they could not speak to matters that had cabinet confidence around them.
On May 28, 2019, with the issue of access to Cabinet confidences unresolved, I wrote to the newly appointed Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Ian Shugart. I set out the concerns expressed by witnesses, noted above, and explained what I believe to be the legislative framework that, at least implicitly, authorizes our Office to access such information. I cited provisions of both the Conflict of Interest Act and the Parliament of Canada Act that prohibit me from revealing confidences of the Queen's Privy Council in the context of public declarations of recusal and our annual reports, respectively. I explained that I understood these prohibitions to mean that our Office would have prima facie access to this information. I then drew the analogy between these prohibitions and the restrictions on the disclosure of confidential information placed on me in the course of examinations, and why I would have similar access to and a similar prohibition on publishing Cabinet confidences in that context.
That was the Ethics Commissioner's pitch on May 28 to the Clerk of the Privy Council, explaining why he should be able to receive the information that the Prime Minister said was being held back due to cabinet confidence.
In a letter dated June 13, 2019, the Clerk of the Privy Council declined my request for access to all Cabinet confidences in respect of this examination.
Mr. Trudeau's legal counsel indicated that the decision on whether to expand the waiver was made by the Privy Council Office without the involvement of the Prime Minister or his office.
But as we all know from this long and sordid, drawn-out affair that we've been witnessing since January, there is always somebody who can overrule a bureaucrat, and that's exactly what Mr. Trudeau wanted Jody Wilson-Raybould to do. So for him to say that he wasn't part of the decision actually is completely irrelevant because he always has the power to tell the Clerk of the Privy Council what to do.
However, I continue reading:
Because of the decisions to deny our Office further access to Cabinet confidences, witnesses were constrained in their ability to provide all evidence. I was, therefore, prevented from looking over the entire body of evidence to determine its relevance to my examination. Decisions that affect my jurisdiction under the Act, by setting parameters on my ability to receive evidence, should be made transparently and democratically by Parliament [emphasis here], not by the very same public office holders who are subject to the regime I administer.
I am convinced that if our Office is to remain truly independent and fulfill its purpose, I must have unfettered access to all information that could be relevant to the exercise of my mandate. I must be satisfied that decisions made by the most senior public office holders, including those discussed at Cabinet, are free from any conflicts of interest.
In the present examination, I have gathered sufficient factual information to properly determine the matter on its merits. Because of my inability to access all Cabinet confidences related to the matter I must, however, report that I was unable to fully discharge the investigatory duties conferred upon me by the Act.
Now, why is this important? This is important because the Ethics Commissioner is detailing very clearly that he sought to get information on cabinet confidences that were outside the waiver the Prime Minister already had given.
Jane Philpott, as well, in her interview said it very clearly, when she was asked by Vassy Kapelos whether or not there was any further information that she thought was relevant that was covered by the waiver. She was asked, “Are you in possession of any information that you think the Ethics Commissioner should have had access to?” Her answer was that “There are pieces of information that I am aware of that I am not at liberty to speak about.”
Jane Philpott further goes on to say, “So what I would point to for Canadians is what the Ethics Commissioner said, which is that he was able to get enough information to make a determination in terms of whether or not there was a breach of the Conflict of Interest Act or not. So it didn't, in a sense, hold him back from being able to make a determination on this, but I would say that I can affirm that there are pieces of information that I am aware of but that, because of the oath that I made to Queen and country to keep in secret that which shall be kept secret, according to the oath that I made as a cabinet minister, unless I am released from that obligation, I am not at liberty to share those pieces of information either with you or with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.”
We know there is more information out there. Jody Wilson-Raybould has said that, as has Jane Philpott, and indeed the Ethics Commissioner attempted to get it. He was unable to get it by virtue of the decision of the Prime Minister. That is not fully co-operating with the Ethics Commissioner, and again, as I said before, that deserves to be reviewed.
More importantly, and most recently, there has been the publication of a book. The book is written by a CBC reporter by the name of Aaron Wherry, and in it, Aaron Wherry had unprecedented access to the Prime Minister on this topic.
If you recall, I said that there were certain things that the former attorney general couldn't discuss, that the former president of the Treasury Board could not discuss, that were not given to the Ethics Commissioner and that the witnesses were not allowed to talk about. One of those things was what happened after the resignation of Jody Wilson-Raybould and what happened in the meetings between the Prime Minister and the former attorney general, because that waiver was cut off when the former attorney general left her time as Attorney General and moved to Veterans Affairs, and as you know, she resigned from Veterans Affairs after that.
Miraculously, it would appear that the concept of cabinet confidence doesn't apply to the Prime Minister—much like every other rule seems not to apply to the Prime Minister, quite frankly—because he gave complete access to this writer, Aaron Wherry, to detail the meeting he had with Jody Wilson-Raybould post her time becoming the Minister of Veterans Affairs. He is waiving cabinet confidence to a reporter in order to get his side out in a novel, yet the Ethics Commissioner cannot receive this information. Jody Wilson-Raybould says there is information and Jane Philpott says there is information that is of interest to Canadians.
I would like to ask the Ethics Commissioner whether or not he has taken any legal advice as to whether or not there has been a waiver of this cabinet confidence by the Prime Minister to cover the period of time that is currently not covered and extend it over that period of time. I think that would be of great interest to Canadians, and I also believe it is something that goes to the heart of ensuring that we get to the bottom of the matter.
Picking up on what Elizabeth May said just a few minutes ago, this is the kind of scandal and the kinds of actions that warrant the highest level of punishment. We can't force that, but it can be at the discretion.... Clearly, as she said, it's not going to happen, but we still owe it to Canadians to understand and give them the truthful information on what has happened and not just take the word of the Prime Minister, because we have seen over and over again that the Prime Minister simply does not keep his word.