We will hear what she has to say
Members of Parliament face a lot of hard decisions, but an easy one is sitting right now before Liberals on the Commons justice committee. On Wednesday, MPs on the committee will be asked to vote on whether to hear again from former minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, on what is now known as the SNC-Lavalin scandal.
The only obvious answer is yes. It was obvious last week when Liberals on the committee ill-advisedly voted down an opposition request for WilsonRaybould to make another appearance.
It is even more evident now that Wilson-Raybould herself has made clear that she wishes to reply to testimony from Justin Trudeau’s former principal secretary, Gerald Butts — as well as to a second round of testimony heard last week from two of the most senior public servants in government.
From any perspective — the legal side, the communications angle, the moral high ground — a refusal to invite WilsonRaybould back to the committee would only deepen the Liberals’ troubles on SNCLavalin. Failure to hear her is not an option.
What’s more, simply on practical terms, it’s a waste of time to try to silence Wilson-Raybould on what happened behind the scenes of her rift with the Prime Minister’s Office on whether to strike a plea deal with SNC-Lavalin.
She will be heard, one way or another. She already has, despite somewhat exaggerated claims that she’s under some kind of gag order from Trudeau. In fact, when you think about it, it’s already remarkable what she’s been able to say from behind that alleged gag. You can bet that if WilsonRaybould is not heard at committee, other means to tell “her truth,” as she puts it, will be found. More on that in a bit.
For five weeks, Trudeau and his Liberals have approached their troubles with WilsonRaybould with dumbfounding minimalism, presumably in the hopes that the less they said, the quicker the whole mess would go away. That didn’t work, to put it mildly.
The rare exceptions to this say-as-little-as-possible approach — notably Butts’s testimony to the committee last week — have been more effective. Not only did Butts add new layers and nuance to the story that Wilson-Raybould told about “undue pressure” she faced on SNC-Lavalin, but his candour demonstrated that Trudeau’s office was at least trying to live up to old promises of openness and transparency.
This isn’t rocket science. As the old communications maxim goes, if you don’t want to look like you’re hiding some- thing, don’t act like you have something to hide.
Sheer fairness alone dictates that Wilson-Raybould have another crack at testimony. Michael Wernick, the clerk of the Privy Council, has had two cracks at testifying, as has Nathalie Drouin, the deputy minister of justice.
We haven’t heard from Wilson-Raybould since Butts and Trudeau himself spoke, notably about their surprise in hearing that her mind was made up about SNC-Lavalin before the alleged pressure from PMO and others began last September. Trudeau went further in his brief press conference last Thursday, saying that in a fateful September meeting, she had agreed to keep options open.
“I asked her if she could revisit that decision, if she was open to considering to looking at it once again. And she said that she would,” Trudeau said. There’s a world of difference between that version of the Sept. 17 meeting and WilsonRaybould’s telling of events.
Wilson-Raybould also hasn’t had a chance to talk about events leading up to her shuffle out of the justice portfolio, which Butts revealed in some fascinating detail. The waiver she’s been granted to speak about events up to the shuffle allows her to discuss this drama, from her perspective.
There’s been a spirited debate among lawyers and parliamentary procedure experts about what Wilson-Raybould is allowed to say. Some have argued that if she is denied a formal invitation on Wednesday, she has other means — a statement in the Commons, where she could enjoy some privilege, according to some, or in a written brief to the committee, which doesn’t require an invitation.
She could also tell her story to the media, if she hasn’t already. Butts hinted broadly at this prospect last week, when he talked of how the Globe and Mail knew of a dinner meeting he held in December with Wilson-Raybould — even the Château Laurier location — which presumably was something that only he and the minister (or someone speaking to the media on her behalf ) would know.
Leaving aside questions of how that information leaked, it does prove that Wilson-Raybould’s side of this saga has found its way into the public arena. It will again, regardless of the results of Wednesday’s committee vote.
Conservatives have started a petition to “let her speak,” which will tempt Liberals to say no, merely to avoid giving the opposition what it wants. That would be a tactical mistake.
Wilson-Raybould is going to find a way to speak. Saying yes to that happening at committee is the easiest decision some Liberal MPs will have to make in this controversy.