A retired House of Commons law clerk says heâs âconfusedâ about why former Liberal ministers Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott seem to be âpressing for an additional waiverâ in relation to the SNC-Lavalin affair.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau granted Wilson-Raybould permission to speak at the Justice Committee in February, where she described a âconsistent and sustained effort by many people within the government to seek to politically interfere in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in my role as the attorney general of Canada, in an inappropriate effort to secure a deferred-prosecution agreement with SNC-Lavalin.â
Wilson-Raybould suggested at the time that there was more she would like to say, but Trudeauâs waiver didnât include the weeks after she was shuffled out of the attorney general job and remained in cabinet. Liberal members of the House of Commons justice committee later voted down an opposition request for Wilson-Raybould to appear for a second time.
Last week, Philpott, who resigned as a result of Wilson-Raybouldâs allegations, that the PM should âwaive privilege on the whole issue and let those who have something to say on it speak their minds and share their stories.â
On Monday, Trudeau called the waiver âunprecedentedâ and said that it allowed âa full airing ... of everything in regards to the SNC-Lavalin file and the time that is in question -- that is, when the former minister of justice was indeed minister of justice.â
Rob Walsh, the former House of Commons law clerk, told CTVâs Power Play on Monday that heâs âconfusedâ about why Wilson-Raybould would need a further waiver.
âItâs only inappropriate pressure and itâs only offensive to her independence if what is said to her is said to her while sheâs attorney general,â he said. âIf sheâs no longer attorney general, whatever is said to her, however unpleasant it might be, isnât inappropriate because she is no longer attorney general,â he added.
âSo Iâd ask,â Walsh went on, âwhatâs this additional information they want to bring out? Does it relate to SNC-Lavalin or is it part of a larger political agenda they want to carry on with?â
A number of high-profile Liberals have suggested that Philpott and Wilson-Raybould, who remain MPs, could use their âparliamentary privilegeâ to speak in the House of Commons if they have more to say. Parliamentary privilege is the special protection MPs have to speak freely in Parliament without fear of being sued or prosecuted.
Minister of Tourism Melanie Joly told CTVâs Question Period late last week, âThey can clearly speak, they can use their own parliamentary privilege to go before Parliament and speak.â
MP Judy Sgro told ŰÎŰ´ŤĂ˝ last Friday that âthereâs no reason that Jane and Jody cannot go into the House of Commons, parliamentary privilege, talk for as long as they want, say anything they want. Theyâd be clear of any cabinet issues.â
âWe donât want to damage the party,â Sgro added. âWeâve got a lot of work to do. And this is hanging over our head with this innuendo ... If thereâs something to be said, itâs an opportunity to say it ... Theyâre under no restrictions. They can walk into the House of Commons right now.â
Philpott told Macleanâs she hasnât done so because of âthe very serious oaths that I made when I became a cabinet minister to respect confidentiality.â Cabinet ministers must swear an oath that says their collective decision-making will remain confidential.
But Walsh says that may not apply here.
âJust because the prime minister might meet with a minister over lunch doesnât make that conversation necessarily a cabinet confidence,â he said. âAlthough there may be an expectation of confidentiality regarding the conversation, that doesnât make it a cabinet confidence."