National Post (National Edition)
‘If you did nothing wrong, why did you resign?’
MPS GRILL GERALD BUTTS
In his opening statement, Gerald Butts, one of Trudeau’s closest friends and, until his resignation in the midst of this scandal, his principal secretary, made a few basic arguments: The decision whether or not there should be a deferred prosecution agreement with SNC-LAVAlin rested with Jody WilsonRaybould alone; whatever the decision, it would impact people and their jobs; that Wilson-raybould’s shuffle from Justice to Veterans Affairs — a portfolio from which she would ultimately resign — was not the result of those discussions; and that there was a breakdown in trust between Trudeau and Wilson-raybould, for which Butts took responsibility. Here are some of the questions the MPS on the committee asked him.
ON WHETHER OR NOT POLITICS SHOULD PLAY A ROLE IN JUSTICE DECISIONS
❚ Lisa Raitt: Are you aware, Mr. Butts, that political considerations are not to be part of decision-making for the attorney-general?
❚ Butts: Absolutely, absolutely.
❚ Raitt: Then why would the Prime Minister’s Office condone several conversations, including the prime minister himself, bringing these elements into discussions with the attorney-general?
❚ Butts: I think there’s a grey area in what you think is a political consideration, but I think you’re also alluding to conversations I wasn’t part of. I certainly never made any comment of the sort.
ON WHY HE DECIDED TO LEAVE THE GOVERNMENT
❚ Randy Boissonnault (Liberal): Mr. Butts, if you did nothing wrong, why did you resign?
❚ Butts: ... I think I was put in a position where I had to ask my colleagues to fight another colleague over accusations a colleague was making, and I think that put the prime minister in an impossible position given the nature of our friendship.
ON WHY HE FELT WILSON-RAYBOULD NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE DECISIONS IN THE SNC-LAVALIN CASE
❚ Boissonnault: In your mind, why was it important that she be able to give a rationale for not giving a remediation agreement?
❚ Butts: A couple of things. One is, the legalities, the law on this, is very fresh. We thought it would be an appropriate step to get seasoned eminent advice from a jurist that would help flesh out the process around the law. That’s all we were trying to do. There was nobody trying to make the AG make one decision or another.
ON WHETHER OR NOT WILSON-RAYBOULD TOLD THE GOVERNMENT SHE FELT PRESSURED
❚ Boissonnault: Are you aware of any instances in which the former attorneygeneral raised this issue of pressure with the prime minister?
❚ Butts: I am not.
❚ Boissonnault: Are you aware that she availed herself of any of the opportunities that she could have had with the prime minister to raise this issue?
❚ Butts: I am not.
❚ Boissonnault: At any point did the former attorney-general ever raise the issue of pressure with you directly?
❚ Butts: No.
ON WHY THE PRIME MINISTER’S OFFICE CONTINUED TO SPEAK WITH JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD’S OFFICE ON THE SNC-LAVALIN ISSUE
❚ Boissonnault: Why did your former office keep speaking to her after the former AG had indicated she made a decision?
❚ Butts: As I outlined in some detail in my statement, I do not believe that we were aware that the AG had made a final decision at the time.
❚ Boissonnault: So what were you trying to achieve then? Getting an external opinion or getting more information on the issue?
❚ Butts: I can only speak to the meetings I was personally associated with or involved in and in my case I still don’t quite get why getting transparent advice from a Supreme Court justice on this matter is controversial at all.
ON WHETHER OR NOT BUTTS SAID HE DISLIKED THE PROSECUTION SERVICE, AS A HARPER-ERA DECISION
❚ Colin Fraser (Liberal): It was quoted that you had said you disliked the law (that created an independent prosecution service because it was a Harper-era law) and we need a solution on SNC stuff, and you made comment about that, that that’s not the way that you would have characterized that?
❚ Butts: No, no, and I, you know, I appeal to the firsthand knowledge of the people who have worked with me over the years on very delicate, sensitive matters, including many of you around the table and ask you whether or not that is in keeping with my character to do such a thing.
ON WHETHER OR NOT THE CABINET SHUFFLE WAS ABOUT SNC-LAVALIN
❚ Raitt: Talking about the cabinet shuffle, your testimony is it wasn’t about SNCLavalin, so why was the deputy minister of justice told, why did the deputy minister of justice say that the prime minister wanted to talk to the new attorney-general about Snc-lavalin matter first thing? ❚ Butts: I have no idea, you’d have to ask the deputy minister of justice that.
ON WHETHER OR NOT SNC-LAVALIN SHOULD HAVE GOT A DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENT
❚ Raitt: Do you believe that Snc-lavalin was entitled to a deferred prosecution agreement?
❚ Butts: No. No. Absolutely not.
ON WHETHER OR NOT BUTTS BELIEVED THERE WAS ALWAYS GOING TO BE SOME POLITICAL INTERFERENCE
❚ Colin Fraser (Liberal): It was indicated in the text messages from the chief of staff to the former attorneygeneral that you said there was no solution here that does not involve some level of interference. What do you say to that?
❚ Butts: Well, I think I answered that question a little while ago Mr. Fraser, but that is not what I said. I do remember that part of the conversation. And I think this is the heart of the matter here: Does asking for external advice constitute political interference? And I think by any reasonable definition of the term it does not.
ON WHETHER OR NOT WILSON-RAYBOULD WAS TELLING THE TRUTH
❚ Charlie Angus (NDP): Did she tell the truth, yes or no? That is the question. It’s not whether you’re trying to be mean to her. That is not the question. If she told us the truth, then your testimony and the testimony and the credibility of the Prime Minister’s Office is in question. That is the question today.
❚ Butts: I believe that everything I have said to this committee today is the truth, and I believe I described the events as they happened.