Front Burner - 'They did not stop.' Jody Wilson-Raybould details alleged political pressure

Episode Date: February 28, 2019

On Wednesday, Jody Wilson-Raybould told the Justice Committee she had been pressured by the PMO to get a deferred prosecution agreement for SNC Lavalin. "I experienced a consistent and sustained effort by many people within the government to seek to politically interfere in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion," said Wilson-Raybould in her testimony. Power & Politics host Vassy Kapelos explains how Wilson-Raybould says it all culminated in her removal from the office of attorney general.

Hey there, I'm Kathleen Goltar and I have a confession to make. I am a true crime fanatic. I devour books and films and most of all true crime podcasts. But sometimes I just want to know more. I want to go deeper. And that's where my podcast Crime Story comes in. Every week I go behind the scenes with the creators of the best in true crime. I chat with the host of Scamanda, Teacher's Pet, Bone Valley, the list goes on. For the insider scoop, find Crime Story in your podcast app. This is a CBC Podcast. He's been charged with sex trafficking and forced labor. The most searing, awful pain was being dragged across my body.

What happens when someone you know tries to take down a bizarre self-help group she's been a part of for 12 years? I'm thinking, how am I going to get out of here? Like, literally, where is the back door? How do I escape? Escaping NXIVM from CBC Podcasts Uncover. Subscribe now at cbc.ca slash uncover. Hello, I'm Jamie Poisson. A consistent and sustained effort of political interference. To seek to politically interfere in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Government officials accused of treading on dangerous ground.

He said, quote, I think he is going to find a way to get it done one way or another. Even the specter of Watergate was conjured up. I said that I was having thoughts of the Saturday night massacre. All by the former attorney general, who after weeks of silence essentially unloaded yesterday. She fired rocket after rocket at the prime minister, his office, the finance minister, and others. There were express statements regarding the necessity of interference in the SNC-Lavalin matter, the potential of consequences, and veiled threats if a DPA was not made available to SNC. Today we'll break down what Jody Wilson-Raybould had to say at a Justice Committee hearing yesterday

and try to explain what this means for the Trudeau government. Spoiler alert, it is not great. This is FrontBurner. Vashi Capellos is the host of Power in Politics, and she's here with me now. Hi, Vashi. Hi, Jamie. How's it going? It's going. It's going.

So, okay, quick reaction to Jodi Wilson-Raybould's testimony today. Well, basically, I had to pick my job off the floor when I first heard it. I think there was just so much anticipation, three weeks of allegations, and we still really didn't know if she would get up there and confirm them. She didn't, like literally in the first few seconds, she not only confirmed them, but she added to the kind of allegations of impropriety. I experienced a consistent and sustained effort by many people within the government. And then went on and on in a very detailed fashion. There were approximately 10 phone calls and 10 meetings specifically about SNC.

It was, I just think it like, it kind of blew away all the expectation and hype and was more than I think most people anticipated. Are we going to use the word bombshell, like the very cliche journalism word? I think you could. But let's not. We choose not to. So what I want to do with you today is go over her testimony and just pull the most important parts from it to try and help understand sort of the significance of it. But first, let's do a little bit of background here. So let's go back to September of last year. Jody Wilson-Raybould,

she is the attorney general at the time. And there is this case involving SNC-Lavalin, a construction engineering giant based in Montreal. And SNC-Lavalin is accused of paying millions of dollars of bribes to the Gaddafi regime in Libya. And they very much do not want to go to trial because if they get convicted And they very much do not want to go to trial because if they get convicted, then they won't be able to get federal contracts for 10 years. They're saying this could essentially bring their company to its knees. And politically, the government is worried about job losses and the chance that a guilty verdict could bring down this company. So am I missing anything big here?

No, like they're really, I mean, from the government's perspective, from what we've heard so far, they're worried about those 9,000 jobs. And it looked like there was some form of communication from the company saying like, we might have to move our headquarters from Quebec, from Canada. We don't know specifically if it would have bankrupt the company, but there was definitely an insinuation from the company that there would be big consequences on them economically if a remediation agreement or a DPA wasn't pursued. And the DPA is essentially this, it's sort of like a plea deal. This is what the company wanted. Exactly. So it's the beginning of September and Jody Wilson-Raybould, according to her testimony today, she gets this notice essentially that the

public prosecutor is not going to pursue this plea deal with SNC-Lavalin. Quote, the DPP is of the view that an invitation to negotiate will not be made in this case. And so what does she say she does? gets this notice and what she starts kind of itemizing in her testimony is the number of times her staff or her office starts getting approached by various actors in the federal government. So starting with, for example, the chief of staff of the finance minister. He said to her, my chief, that if they don't get a DPA, they will leave Montreal and it's the Quebec election right now. So we can't have that happen. He said that they have a big meeting coming up on And going even into the prime minister's office, like people who work in the prime minister's office. They said that they think we should be able to find a more reasonable resolution here.

And all of them are raising the same idea. They're saying like, you know, there are concerns with SNC. Can we revisit this? Is there a solution? Like raising the prospect of her intervening in some way, in some capacity to make sure or to sort of pursue the idea of a DPA for SNC. And these are the first conversations that we see over the beginning of September. And like I said, they involve her staff and other minister staff, staff and PMO. And she sort of gets involved in it and she reviews the matter, she says. And then she decides, like, it's not appropriate for her to intervene in the decision of the director of public prosecutions.

That's the woman who ultimately made the choice not to pursue a DPA. And she decides she's not going to intervene. My view had also formed at this point that it was inappropriate for me to intervene in the decision of the director of public prosecutions in this case and to pursue a deferred prosecution agreement. So now we've got ourselves to like the middle of September. And this is where this seems to enter into another phase. She has this meeting with the prime minister, which she says in her testimony today was about something else, ostensibly about something else. But when she gets there, the prime minister that is there,

and also the clerk of the Privy Council is there, Michael Wernick. And so what happens at this meeting with the prime minister where she's decided she's already made up her mind she is not going to intervene? So I would call this meeting probably one of the most important parts of her testimony and something that's really important to pay attention to. According to her testimony, her version of events, she gets there, They're supposed to be talking about, you know, as you said, the meetings about something else. But she says right off the top of the meeting, he brings up SNC and he brings up the DPA. The prime minister raised the issue immediately. The prime minister asked me to help out, to find a solution here for SNC. And he talks about something that we've heard the government already say, like jobs are at stake, you know, this is important

economically, we have to think about that. And that SNC would move from Montreal. But then he says something that she says crosses the line into inappropriate territory. And this, for her, you could hear throughout her testimony, really sort of delineated the red line. At that point, the prime minister jumped in, stressing that there is an election in Quebec, and that, quote, I am an MP in Quebec, the member for Papineau, end quote. I was quite taken aback.

And why do you think this crosses this red line for her? Well, I'm not really the one to say, but she is the one who was asked so many times during her testimony, like, why did you think this was inappropriate? And she kept citing sort of partisan politics and that it was okay to talk about jobs in her capacity as AG. Other ministers can do that. People in cabinet can do that. That's understandable from a policy point of view. can do that. People in cabinet can do that. That's understandable from a policy point of view. But as soon as you start bringing into consideration partisan politics, for her,

you could tell that she viewed the role of the AG as sort of like sacrosanct, like apart from anything political. She should not be thinking about partisan interests when she's making her decisions. That's what I sort of gleaned from her testimony. And when the prime minister said, you know, there's an election in Quebec soon, and I am an MP in Quebec, the member for Papineau, she said her response was to look him in the eye. I asked, quote, are you politically interfering with my role, my decision as the attorney general? I would strongly advise against it, end quote. The prime minister said, no, no, no, we just need to find a solution. So after the meeting with the prime minister where Jody Wilson Raybould, you know, tells him in according to her words in no uncertain terms that she will not

intervene and that she advises him against, you know, politically interfering here. She also tells Bill Morneau to stop having his staff approach her. Do these overtures stop? No, she says explicitly she wants them to stop. And I told him that engagements from his office to mine on SNC had to stop, that they were inappropriate. They did not stop. And it appears like there's a break of about three weeks, but then they pick up again, and mostly in the form of staff members, either approaching her from staff members from the prime minister's office or from chiefs of staff to other offices, approaching her or approaching people in her office and bringing up the idea over and over again that a solution needs to be found. But she sort of reiterates over and over again that she had made up her mind. And then they start saying, well, maybe we can get another legal opinion, an outside legal opinion. This would become a recurring theme for some time in messages from the PMO that an external review should be done of the DPP's decision. And here she's just sort of laying the evidence or the groundwork to show that

this is what in her mind constituted consistent pressure. I should note around this time, like, they also seem to be pursuing this on two tracks. There's, you know, this could, we could lose a lot of jobs, something needs to be done here, but also people are still saying that it's her decision to make. Mathieu said that everybody knows that this is the attorney general's decision, but that he wants to make sure that all options are being canvassed. Yeah, and I think that's because she was so insistent that it was her decision. So she kept seeking acknowledgement of that. There's this part in her testimony where she steps back and she tells people about her thought process. same matter. And in the face of a clear decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the

Attorney General to continue and even intensify such efforts raises serious red flags in my view. What did you think when you heard her say that? I think that what she was doing here was trying to establish exactly the definition in her mind of what constituted inappropriate pressures. Now, there are these two important meetings in December. One on December 5th with Jerry Butts, the Prime Minister's former principal secretary, who's now resigned over this whole mess. I raised how I needed everybody to stop talking to me about SNC as I had made up my mind and the engagements were inappropriate. Jerry then took over the conversation and said how we need a solution on the SNC stuff. He said I needed to find a solution.

And then almost two weeks later, there's another meeting between Wilson-Raybould's chief of staff. Her name is Jessica Prince, as well as Jerry Butts and Katie Telford, the primeould's chief of staff, her name is Jessica Prince, as well as Jerry Butts and Katie Telford, the prime minister's chief of staff. And this meeting, according to Jody Wilson-Raybould today, left her chief of staff quite upset. So let's go through what happened. So essentially, they also wanted to see where she was at when it came to finding a solution. They told her that they felt like the issue was getting worse and that I was not doing anything. As you said, they met with her chief of staff.

And just to paint a picture, her chief of staff, Jessica Prince, her former chief of staff, is very close to Jody Wilson-Raybould. And probably the most emotional, the only time really that you saw Jody Wilson-Raybould got emotional in this testimony was when she talked about Jessica Prince and sort of how much she valued her. So there's some context there. They were very close. I will say now that I have this opportunity and I think some people are watching, she is an extraordinary human being, an extraordinary lawyer. She goes into a meeting with Katie Telford and Jerry Butts, who are the two top officials. Like for people listening, this is the top of the government. This is as

high as it gets. They ran the last campaign. They're the closest people to the prime minister. She also said that people believe that they spoke for the prime minister, including Jody Wilson-Raybould. So they talked about, according to her chief of staff, wanting a solution. Jessica, Katie was like, quote, we don't want to debate legalities anymore, end quote. The idea of providing cover if Jodi Wilson-Raybould was uncomfortable with that, which we know to be through her testimony what she was. Right. And just sort of going over ideas of how they might be able to provide that cover, for example. able to provide that cover, for example. She was like, quote, if Jodi is nervous, we would, of course, line up all kinds of people to write op-eds saying that what she is doing is proper, end quote.

And, you know, the other interesting part that came from this meeting with Jerry Butts and Katie Telford is this line that Jerry Butts allegedly delivers according to Jodi Wilson-Rample's testimony. And she's like reading text messages between her and Jessica Prince. Jerry said, quote, Jess, there is no solution here that does not involve some interference, end quote. Is Jody Wilson-Raybould saying that Gerald Butts acknowledged that he was doing something wrong here during this meeting? I don't know if that's the case. And I say that only because interference, it's not, I mean, it's not illegal for the attorney general to interfere, actually, that they can do that.

So we've got these meetings with like the top of the government, Katie Telfer, Jerry Butz, beginning in mid-December. And then the last meeting that I want to talk to you about is one where Jody Wilson-Raybould said today gave her, quote, heightened anxiety. That increased and culminated in my discussion with the clerk on December the 19th. And this is with the clerk of the Privy Council. She said she was at home and it was like a pretty lengthy call over an hour. Yeah, this is, again, if I were to pick the second sort of seminal moment of the testimony, this would be it. So the first is a conversation with the prime minister where she tells him, looks him in the eye and tells him,

you know, that she advises against him politically interfering. And the second one is this one. It's this one because this is what we heard. Michael Wernick, the other person on this call, was the one who testified last week. And he painted this call as, I'm checking in with the justice minister.

And one of the things I'm checking in on is this SNC thing. And I'm reminding her that, hey, there's some concern in cabinet with the Justice Minister. And one of the things I'm checking in on is this SNC thing. And I'm reminding her that, hey, there's some concern in cabinet with the Prime Minister. And the way he described it was not a confrontational call, not about making threats. So I can tell you with complete assurance that my view of those conversations

is that they were within the boundaries of what's lawful and appropriate. I was informing the minister of context. Not basically in the way that it was conceived by Jody Wilson-Raybould, as she laid out today. She said in three instances during the call, she felt as though veiled threats were being made. And she points to statements that he made about the prime minister specifically, like the fact that he invoked the prime minister's name in the conversation.

So he said, for example, I think he is going to find a way to get it done one way or another. He is in that kind of mood and I wanted you to be aware of it, end quote. So he's clearly articulating that the prime minister, according to her, wanted this DPA, wanted the attorney general to intervene, and at this point is making her aware of the fact that he is dug in I think is the word she used so her the way she described it it was she had this heightened anxiety and I remember distinctly ending that conversation with the clerk by saying I am waiting for the other shoe to drop because she obviously felt like her job was on the line. And it's interesting.

This is the same two-track thing is going on here. You know, she even, according to her testimony today, Michael Wernick also says during this call, You know, he does not want to do anything outside of the box of what is legal or proper. Yeah, and I think that's going to be a sentence we look at for a long time. I think legal and proper, and at the end of the day, I honestly think that those two concepts are going to be so much of what informs the discussion because she even said nothing that happened was illegal. The kind of pressure I was put under,

I don't think that's a breach of the criminal code. But she clearly does not think it was proper. She also brings up Watergate. I said that I was having thoughts of the Saturday night massacre. Which is like essentially, you know, when there was an investigation into these operatives that broke into the Democratic headquarters and bugged the Democratic headquarters, Nixon essentially ordered his attorney general to fire the guy tapped with investigating that incident. And then all these resignations ensued after that. Obviously was having thoughts about the potential for direction coming to me from the prime minister and my having to consider resigning. What did you think when she brought up the Saturday Night Massacre? I thought a lot of things pretty much the same things as you. We're not going to use the word bombshell again. Yeah, no.

She's painting a picture of what she thinks is a concerted effort to bring her down. I think she's saying here she got demoted. She got quote unquote whatever, fired, whatever you want to call it, because she stood her ground and she stood up to them. because she stood her ground and she stood up to them. We'll be back in a second to talk about the fact that Jody Wilson-Raybould believes her refusal to give SNC-Lavalin a deal is what got her fired as attorney general. Thank you. Brought to life by powerful performances from renowned actors and narrators. With the free Audible app, you can listen anytime, anywhere, whether you're at home, in the car, or out on a jog. The first 30 days of the Audible membership are free, including a free book. Go to www.audible.ca to learn more. All right. So does Jody Wilson-Raybould go into any more detail about why she believes she was shuffled or essentially fired as attorney general?

She does talk a bit about how exactly what we were just saying, the idea that she brought up when she got when the prime minister called her to say she was getting moved. She asked him, was it about SNC and a decision I wouldn't take? He said no. She asked Jerry Butts the same thing. He also denied it. I chose to take them at their words. And that's kind of in response to tons of questions from liberals on the committee who were like, why didn't you quit then? Why didn't you resign? You also had faith and belief that there was no interference and that's why you

carried on with taking on a new role? I had serious concerns about it. But again, I took the prime minister at his word. So after this four hour long testimony and then questioning by members of the committee, it was extraordinary. The conservative leader, Andrew Scheer, comes out. Justin Trudeau simply cannot continue to govern this country now that Canadians know what he has done. So let's talk about that for a second. Yeah. So he's calling on the RCMP. He says that the prime minister has lost the moral authority to govern. A prime minister who allows his partisan political motivations to overrule his duty to uphold the rule of law. It was certainly interesting. Like, I was a bit surprised. I think that if only for, and not to say if all of this is proven correct,

it might not be worthy of something big like resignation. But I think at this stage, it took some people by surprise because at this point, as compelling and as credible as her testimony was, it still is her saying one thing and the prime minister saying, no, that didn't happen or no, that's not how I understand it. So the mechanism to arrive at some kind of impartial conclusion about who's right and who's wrong in that scenario has yet to be determined. Like we don't have a clear answer. to be determined. Like, we don't have a clear answer. And then let's go to Justin Trudeau,

who, like, around 8 p.m., he comes out and he makes a statement. I strongly maintain, as I have from the beginning, that I and my staff always acted appropriately and professionally. I therefore completely disagree with the former attorney general's characterization of events.

He also is asked about whether she's going to remain in caucus. And I think his answer here is kind of telling because he says that he actually didn't listen to all of her testimony. And until he does, he doesn't want to make a decision on whether she remains in caucus. But he didn't address, like, for example, that specific claim that was made in that September meeting that he stood up and he said, there's an election in Quebec coming up and I am an MP in Quebec. Like, that was a very specific allegation that came to light today

that she said constituted political interference in her mind or inappropriate pressure in her mind. And he didn't, he was asked specifically about it. And instead, he talked about how the government is defending jobs and will continue to do so. Is that version of events accurate? My job as prime minister is to stand up for jobs right across the country, to make sure that we're creating good jobs, that we're growing more jobs, and that we're defending the jobs we already have. growing more jobs and that we're defending the jobs we already have.

Okay, Vashi, that was a workout. So much to follow here. And we're so appreciative for you going through it with us. And we'll talk again soon. Thank you so much. Thanks for listening to FrontBurner. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts. It's 2011 and the Arab Spring is raging. A lesbian activist in Syria starts a blog. She names it Gay Girl in Damascus. Am I crazy? Maybe. As her profile grows, so does the danger.

The object of the email was, please read this while sitting down. It's like a genie came out of the bottle and you can't put it back. Gay Girl Gone. Available now.