Article content continued

On why she didn’t seek external legal counsel, and why she didn’t resign:

O’Connell: Whether it was yourself, your office, the prime minister’s office, within the prosecution, there seemed to be disagreement or differences of opinions, let’s put it that way. Why would it have been unreasonable … what would the exception be to bringing in another opinion, an outside legal opinion?

Wilson-Raybould: I did not need external legal counsel, I did not need people in the prime minister’s office continuing to suggest that I needed external legal counsel. That’s inappropriate. But I will say with respect to the conversations you mentioned with Mathieu Bouchard and his remarks about an individual prosecutor as being different from that of the director of public prosecutions, I can’t help but wonder why he would bring that up, how he would know that, how he garnered that information. It is entirely inappropriate for any member of the prime minister’s office, and it would be entirely inappropriate for any member of my staff or within my department to reflect those conversations because I would have serious concerns and I did at the time and still do, concerns about about how that information was acquired and from whom.

O’Connell: If you felt that that information was so inappropriate Sept. 16, did you consider resigning? Like if it’s moving forward and they continued, did you not consider resigning then?

Wilson-Raybould: I did not consider resigning then. I was, in my opinion, doing my job as the attorney general. I was protecting a fundamental, constitutional principle of prosecutorial independence and the independence of our judiciary. That’s my job. That was my job, rather, as the attorney general. And as long as I was attorney general, I was going to ensure that the independence of the director of public prosecutions, and the exercise of their discretion, was not interfered with.

O’Connell: Do you still have confidence in the prime minister today?

Wilson-Raybould: I’m not sure how that question is relevant.

On the historic precedence if she had followed the prime minister’s wishes:

Nathan Cullen (NDP): Was that your testimony here today, that an attorney general has never used a specific directive on a specific case, as in the case of SNC-Lavalin? Is that right?

Wilson-Raybould: That’s correct.

Cullen: So not only is this tool incredibly rare, it has never been applied in the way that was being suggested by the clerk of the privy council, all the other people that consistently lobbied you to use that tool. They were asking you to do something essentially historic.

Wilson-Raybould: An attorney general has never issued a specific direction in a specific prosecution, nor has an attorney general in this country ever issued a directive, or sorry, rather, taken over a prosecution. It would be historic. For the first time.

Cullen: So what you were being asked for in this case is to do something extraordinary in this case, you were being asked to do something unprecedented.

On the legality of deferred prosecution agreements:

Cullen: The ability to seek one of these special, I’m calling them plea deals, I’m not a lawyer. These deferrals. They can’t be made for political reasons, is that correct?

Wilson-Raybould: That’s correct.

Cullen: It’s illegal, in fact, for you to have made the decision based on political motivations, is that correct?

Wilson-Raybould: It would be unlawful for me to do that.

Cullen: … Is it illegal for someone just to pressure the attorney general to intervene on a case?

Wilson-Raybould: In my opinion it’s not illegal. It is very inappropriate depending on the context of the comments made, the nature of the pressure, the specific issues that are raised, it’s incredibly inappropriate and is an attempt to compromise or to impose upon an independent attorney general.

On the role of the clerk of the privy council, Michael Wernick:

Elizabeth May (Green Party): There’s a very prominent role being played by I think unusual actors in the civil service. … Going to Sept. 17, you described a meeting which you had requested of the prime minister on a different topic. It was supposed to be a one-on-one meeting, by which I infer you did not expect the clerk of the privy council to be present when you went to meet with the prime minister, is that correct?

Wilson-Raybould: I didn’t expect that but I will say that the fact he was there, I didn’t ask him to leave.

May: So in the context of the pressure that was being applied, and the political concerns that were being raised. I’m going to put forward a positive statement and see if you agree, but the appropriate role for the clerk of the privy council office is to support the attorney general, because it’s, you’re on dangerous ground here, back off, this is political interference. The job of the civil service is to remain nonpartisan and give good advice. Did you think the clerk of the privy council was behaving appropriately in applying political pressure to anyone in this case?

Wilson-Raybould: I do not believe that he was behaving appropriately, which is why I was very surprised when he raised issues of the Quebec election and a board meeting that was supposedly happening with SNC.

May: Do you believe that the clerk of the privy council appeared to be placing your deputy minister of justice under pressure that could’ve affected her confidence in her job security?

Wilson-Raybould: Honestly, I don’t believe I can answer the question.

• Email: mdsmith@postmedia.com | Twitter: mariedanielles