WILSON-RAYBOULD HAS OTHER AVENUES TO SPEAK ‘HER TRUTH.’
Other venues exist and some carry privilege
OTTAWA • Will Canadians have another chance to hear Jody Wilson-raybould’s side of the story? All eyes are on the House of Commons justice committee, but she has other options to speak out — if she chooses to use them.
On Wednesday, the Liberals used their majority on the Commons justice committee to shut down debate on an opposition motion to call Wilson-raybould for a second round of testimony on the Snc-lavalin scandal. The committee meets again on Tuesday, and it is still possible the Liberals will relent.
The opposition has demanded she have the chance to respond to a second round of testimony from Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick and Deputy Justice Minister Nathalie Drouin last week. The opposition also wants to give Wilson-raybould the chance to talk about what happened after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau informed her she would be removed as justice minister and attorney general.
The Liberals control the committee with their voting majority, so they have the ultimate say on whether Wilson-raybould will return. But even if her invitation is blocked, Wilson-raybould has other venues for speaking.
Here are the principal ways Wilson-raybould could tell her side of the story outside of the justice committee.
HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER
A key issue for Wilson-raybould is what she’s allowed to discuss publicly. She’s made it clear she does not want to discuss matters covered by cabinet confidence, the long-standing principle that discussions between cabinet ministers are secret, unless she gets an explicit waiver from the prime minister. She has also said she needs a waiver to discuss any legal advice she gave to Trudeau or cabinet.
Yet if Wilson-raybould speaks in Parliament, she is covered by the sweeping power of parliamentary privilege — the constitutional right of Members of Parliament to freely discuss matters of public interest while performing their duties, and to be protected from civil or criminal liability in doing so. Most experts believe that parliamentary privilege trumps all other forms of privilege, including cabinet confidence and solicitor-client privilege.
Wilson-raybould could address the House of Commons in a variety of ways. In February, she used a point of order after a vote to tell the Commons what she needed in order to speak.
An easier route for Wilson-raybould could be to make a Member’s Statement. Such statements are given before Question Period and can be on “virtually any matter of local, provincial, national or international concern,” according to House of Commons guidelines. The main constraint is they are supposed to be capped at one minute. Speaker Geoff Regan would have the discretion to allow for a longer statement, however.
Wilson-raybould could also decide to speak during regular parliamentary debate, as long as it’s on topic. This could happen on a day where the opposition has a motion on the subject, for example.
ANOTHER INVITATION TO APPEAR
AS A WITNESS
Even if the Commons justice committee blocks Wilson-raybould from returning, she may get an invitation from somewhere else.
The most likely place this would happen is the Senate, where the Liberals no longer have a caucus so they no longer have the ability to control votes. The Senate is now a mix of groups, with the largest being the Independent Senators Group (most of whom were appointed by Trudeau).
The Senate is still debating a motion to launch its own inquiry into the Snc-lavalin scandal. Sen. Peter Harder, the government representative in the Senate, has moved an amendment that would effectively kill the Senate’s own inquiry and leave it up to the ethics commissioner’s office to investigate.
If Harder’s amendment fails and the Senate votes to conduct its own investigation, Wilson-raybould would be invited to testify — and her testimony would be covered by parliamentary privilege. But the Senate’s debate on the motion could still drag out for weeks.
OUTSIDE PARLIAMENT
Finally, Wilson-raybould could choose to speak outside the confines of Parliament. She could, for example, talk to one of the many charming and talented journalists at the National Post.
But this option remains very unlikely, as it would potentially require Wilson-raybould to break cabinet confidence without the cover of parliamentary privilege.