Jody Wilson-Raybould’s February 27th testimony exposed Justin Trudeau, Gerald Butts, and Bill Morneau—alongside PMO and Privy Council staff—pressuring her to overturn SNC Lavalin’s $48M bribery refusal despite clear legal advice. Over 50 lobbying meetings, 10 direct calls, and a December 2018 Chateau Laurier meeting with Butts revealed election-driven interference, culminating in her January 7th, 2019, removal. Criminal Code violations (Section 139.2) and Morneau’s ethics conviction suggest systemic obstruction, with Wilson-Raybould’s unyielding integrity exposing a government prioritizing partisan survival over justice. [Automatically generated summary]
This is a free audio only podcast of the Ezra Levant Show, which is a daily video show.
I really think you should subscribe because especially today you got to see the video.
But enjoy the audio and I want to let you know you can get the video for just $8 a month or if you buy a whole year in advance it's 80 bucks which is two months free.
And if you go to the rebel.media slash shows and you use the coupon code podcast you can get another 10% off or something.
It's like so cheap.
We're almost paying you to listen to it.
You don't just get my show every day.
You get a show from Sheila Gunrid, a show from David Menzies, lots of fun stuff.
And of course she helped the Rebels stay strong and we need that.
Today won't surprise you.
We are going full on Jodi Wilson Raybold's shocking bombshell thermonuclear H-bomb testimony before a parliamentary committee, absolutely proving beyond in my mind, a shadow of a doubt, that Justin Trudeau, Katie Telford, Gerald Butts, and the rest of the PMO are crooked.
Don't listen to me say it.
Listen to her.
This very special extended edition of the Ezra Levant Show.
You got to get right to it.
Without further to-do, here is the audio-only version of Jodi Wilson-Raybold taking down the king.
Tonight, Jodi Wilson-Raybold, the former attorney general, did something shocking today.
She told the truth about Justin Trudeau.
I think he might go to jail.
It's February 27th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I'm publishing it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Today, Jody Wilson-Raybould testified before Parliament about Justin Trudeau, Gerald Butts, and the rest of the Prime Minister's office, and others in the liberal inner circle, other cabinet ministers, and even the head of the supposedly non-partisan civil service, the...
the clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, how all of these people and others conspired to pressure her to drop criminal charges against a corrupt company called SNC Lavilan.
That's a Quebec-based engineering firm that was caught paying $48 million in illegal bribes in Libya.
They were prosecuted for those crimes of corruption in Canada, but because they're a Quebec company and Trudeau is a Quebec prime minister, well, the Librano's instinct came out, and so the Montreal Liberals, including Trudeau and Butts, well, they went to work on Jodi Wilson-Raybold, the first Aboriginal woman justice minister in Canadian history.
They met with her, they pestered her, they pressed her a dozen times, and she refused to bend.
So they broke her, they fired her.
Now, until now, it was just reports in the newspapers.
The Globe and Mail reported some of this a few weeks ago, but it was mainly anonymous sources.
Wilson Raybold herself hired a former Supreme Court judge as her lawyer to make sure she complied with her obligations as a former cabinet minister and justice minister in terms of confidentiality and solicitor client privilege, as in she couldn't say things publicly, so she didn't.
But today, she negotiated her appearance at a parliamentary committee, and Trudeau actually, under pressure, agreed to waive at least some of his solicitor-client privilege over her to allow her to talk at least somewhat about it, and oh my God, she did.
Now, I'm going to play for you her opening comments to the parliamentary committee.
Afterwards, she took questions.
I'm going to play about a half an hour of that, her opening statement in full.
Now, I'm going to stop the video from time to time to give you my thoughts.
I haven't even scripted this.
Thanking Canadians and Highlighting Testimonies00:02:47
I just watched it in awe.
This is breaking so late in the day.
I actually had another monologue fully prepared for today, but this late breaking news is just too important.
I want to show it to you in full, her comments, that is, because I know you won't get that elsewhere.
So here, without further ado, is Jodi Wilson-Raybold, the former Justice Minister and Attorney General, who was fired from that position and demoted to Veterans Minister and then quit that and now has spoken truth to power.
It is the most amazing thing I think I have ever seen in Canadian politics.
Let's watch, and I'll cut in from time to time with some thoughts.
Here she is.
Thank you so much, Ms. Wilson-Raybold.
The floor is yours.
Well, Gayla Castla, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the members of the Justice Committee for providing me the opportunity for extended testimony today.
I very much appreciate it.
And starting off, I would like to acknowledge the territory, the ancestral lands of the Algonquin people.
For a period of approximately four months between September and December of 2018, I experienced a consistent 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 Lavlin.
These events involved 11 people, excluding myself and my political staff, from the Prime Minister's office, the Privy Council office, and the Office of the Minister of Finance.
This included in-person conversations, telephone calls, emails, and text messages.
There were approximately 10 phone calls and 10 meetings specifically about SNC, and I and or my staff were a part of these meetings.
Within these conversations, there were express statements in my testimonies to outline the details of these communications for the committee and indeed all Canadians.
However, before doing that, let me make a couple of comments.
First, I want to thank Canadians for their patience since the February 7th story, which broke in the Globe and Mail.
Thank you as well, specifically to those who have reached out to me across the country.
I appreciate the messages, and I have read all of them.
Secondly, on the role of the Attorney General.
The Attorney.
All right.
So there was a little bit of a hiccup in the live stream we were playing there, but right there is stunning.
You will recall that Justin Trudeau, when he first saw that early February report in the Globe and Mail, said, oh, there's nothing there.
There's nothing to it.
And you know, she's fine with it.
And in no time, well, remember what he said?
He said, no time did I direct her to take a decision.
Role Of The Attorney General00:03:19
He used very legalistic language.
But if you were to take that at face value, you would think, oh, well, Trudeau didn't pester her at all.
But we just heard 10 phone calls and 10 meetings, and there were texts and other things.
Justin Trudeau told the world a lie because of two things.
He thought Jodie Wilson-Raybel was still on side enough, because remember, when that story broke, she was still the veterans minister, so he held power over her.
You're not going to give up your perks of being cabinet, are you?
And of course, he was holding over her solicitor client privilege.
Now, I don't even know if that would properly apply, but that's when a lawyer gives advice to a client.
The lawyer can't blab about it.
Well, Justin Trudeau was betting on that to make the story go away.
You'll remember he bragged that she was in cabinet.
Well, the next day she quit.
You can imagine how infuriating it would have been for Jodi Wilson-Rabel to watch Trudeau say, oh, no, no, I never pressured her, knowing there were 10 phone calls, 10 meetings, and so much more.
I tell you, at this moment, you could hear a pin drop in that parliamentary committee.
Let's watch some more.
Attorney General exercises prosecutorial discretion as provided for under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act.
Generally, this authority is exercised by the Director of Public Prosecutions, but the Attorney General has authority to issue directives to the DPP on specific prosecutions or to take over prosecutions.
It is well established that the Attorney General exercises prosecutorial discretion.
She or he does so individually and independently.
These are not cabinet decisions.
I will say that it is appropriate for cabinet colleagues to draw to the Attorney General's attention what they see as important policy considerations that are relevant to decisions about how a prosecution will proceed.
What is not appropriate is pressing the Attorney General on matters that she or he cannot take into account, such as partisan political considerations, continuing to urge the Attorney General to take her or his mind four months after the decision has been made, or suggesting that a collision with the Prime Minister on these matters should be avoided.
Well, isn't that interesting?
First of all, she's summarizing what the rule of law means.
The rule of law means we follow the black letters in a book.
It's the opposite of the rule of man, where some king says this is the law today.
We'll prosecute him, but not prosecute her, because I am the king.
In a country with a rule of law, responsible government, and an independent judiciary, whether you're rich or poor or connected or not makes no difference.
It was very important for Jodi Wilson-Raybel to make these points.
And you'll notice that she's reasonable.
She says there are some policy issues that are appropriate to consider when prosecuting, but that doesn't include the political outcomes of any political party or the whims of the prime minister.
That's an important distinction she comes to later on.
Jodi's Stand on Law00:14:38
Here, let's continue to watch.
With that said, the remainder of my testimony will be a detailed and factual delineation of approximately 10 phone calls, 10 in-person meetings, and emails and text messages that were part of an effort to politically interfere regarding SNC, the SNC matter, for purposes of securing a deferred prosecution.
The story begins on September the 4th, 2008.
My chief of staff and I were overseas when I was sent a memorandum for the Attorney General pursuant to Section 13 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, which was entitled, quote, whether to issue an invitation to negotiate a remediation agreement to SNC Lavalin, end quote, which was prepared by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Kathleen Roussell.
The only parts of this note that I will disclose are as follows.
Quote, the DPP is of the view that an invitation to negotiate will not be made in this case and that no announcement will be made by the PPSC, end quote.
As with all Section 13 notices, the Director provides the information so that the Attorney General can take such course of action as they deem appropriate.
In other words, the Director had made her decision to not negotiate a remediation agreement with SNC Lavillin.
Okay, so just to be clear, Jodi Wilson-Raybold, she's the Justice Minister, she's the cabinet minister, but she's also the Attorney General, the highest ranking lawyer in Canada.
And one of her lower ranking lawyers, the head of public prosecutions, sent her a memo saying, no, we're not going to cut a plea deal with these guys.
And I won't get into the reasons why.
We've shown you a clip from Solomon Friedman before.
They don't qualify.
These guys are repeat offenders.
It goes to the highest ranks of the company.
They continually do business in a corrupt way.
So the independent prosecutor, who's not a political person, who's just a prosecuting lawyer, you heard her name, Russel was her name, wrote a memo to her boss, Jody Wilson-Raybold, saying, boss, just to give you the heads up, we're not going to enter into a plea bargain to let these guys off the hook, something sometimes called a deferred prosecution agreement.
So it was over, and it was important that Jody Wilson-Raybold start the conversation this way to let you know that the independent judgment call by the prosecutor was we have to sue these criminals.
That's the rule of law.
Now there is room for some policy debate and that's why the memo went to the Justice Minister, the Attorney General.
But it's important for you to know that in September, she said 2008, she meant 2018, the government of Canada was going to prosecute the well-known criminals SNC-11.
I'm saying they are well-known because they've confessed all this.
Keep watching.
Avalan.
I subsequently spoke to my minister's office staff about the decision, and I did the standard practice of undertaking further internal work and due diligence in relation to this note, a practice that I have had for many of the Section 13 notices that I received when I was the Attorney General.
In other words, I immediately put in motion with my department and minister's office a careful consideration and study of the matter.
Two days later, on September the 6th, one of the first communications about the DPA was received from outside of my department.
Ben Chin, Minister Morneau's chief of staff, emailed my chief of staff and they arranged to talk.
He wanted to talk about SNC and what we could do, if anything, to address this.
He said to her, my chief, that if they don't get a DPA, they will leave Montreal and it's the Quebec election right now, so we can't have that happen.
He said that they have a big meeting coming up on Tuesday and that this bad news may go public.
Now, I'll let her explain it, but you got it right there.
Ben Chin, that's the chief of staff to Bill Mourneau, the finance minister.
He's also, it won't surprise you to learn, a former CBC journalist.
And as she'll explain, saying, hey, Minister, I'm with the Finance Minister, and you know, suing this company could cause job losses in Canada.
Please take that into account.
That's a legitimate public policy question.
Maybe the proper thing to do for Canada is to protect the jobs.
I don't think so.
I think we have to prosecute corrupt companies.
I think saying, oh, putting us in jail will hurt our economy.
I don't think that's the way to do it.
But that's legit.
But did you hear that second part?
Uh-oh, the election is coming up.
We can't lose an election.
No, no, no.
Then that's about the personal interest of the liberals, of the Libranos.
Do you see?
Well, don't take it from me.
Take it from Jody Wilson-Raybold.
This same day, my chief of staff exchanged some emails with my minister's office staff about this, who advised her that the Deputy Attorney General, Nathalie Trouin, was working on something and that my staff were drafting a memo about the role of the Attorney General vis-a-vis the PPSC.
It was on or about this day that I requested a one-on-one meeting with the Prime Minister on another matter of urgency, and as soon as possible after I got back into the country.
This request would ultimately become the meeting on September the 17th between myself and the Prime Minister that has widely been reported in the media.
On September 7th, my chief of staff spoke by phone to my then minister, our deputy minister, about the call she had received from Ben Chin, and the deputies stated that the department is working on this.
The deputy gave my chief a quick rundown of what she thought some options would be.
On the same day, I received a note from my staff on the role of the Attorney General, a note that I also shared with Elder or that my office also shared with Elder Marquez and Amy Archer at the PMO.
Same day, staff in my office met with the deputy minister.
Some excerpts of the section 13 note were read to the deputy minister, but the deputy minister did not want to be provided with a copy of the section 13 note.
September 8th.
My deputy shared the draft note on the role of the Attorney General with my chief of staff, who subsequently shared it with me.
And over the next day, clarity was sought by my staff with the deputy on aspects of the options that were laid out in her note.
A follow-up conversation between Ben Chin and a member of my staff, François Giroux, occurred on September the 11th.
Mr. Chin said that SNC had been informed that the PPS or by the PPSC that it cannot enter into a DPA.
And Ben again detailed the reasons why they were told that they were not getting a DPA.
Mr. Chin also noted that SNC's legal counsel, Frank Jacobucci, and further detailed what the terms were that SNC was prepared to agree to, stating that they viewed this as part of a negotiation.
To be clear, up to this point, I had not been directly contacted by the Prime Minister, officials in the Prime Minister's office, or the Privy Council office about this matter.
With the exception of Mr. Chin's discussions, the focus of communications had been internal to the Department of Justice.
This changes on September.
Okay, Ben Chin broke the law.
Technically, you're not allowed to put any pressure on the Justice Minister in any manner to obstruct justice.
He did that with the reference to the outcome of the election.
You can't try and lean on a prosecutor and say, don't prosecute a criminal because it'll look bad for the Liberal Party.
You can talk about jobs that is legitimate.
But as you can see, the decision was made by the prosecutor at the DPP, that's the public prosecution's office.
And understand what she just said.
She requested a meeting with Justin Trudeau about another matter.
Did you hear that?
And she said that no one from the PMO had talked to her about this, but she goes to meet with Trudeau on another matter, and guess what he talks about?
We'll take a listen.
September the 16th.
My chief of staff had a phone call with Mathieu Bouchard and Elder Marquez from the Prime Minister's office.
They wanted to discuss SNC.
They told her that SNC had made further submissions to the Crown and that there is some softening, but not much.
They said that they understood that the individual Crown prosecutor wants to negotiate an agreement, but the director does not.
They said that they understand that they can't direct, but that they hear that our deputy of justice thinks we can get the PPSC to say we think that we should get some outside advice on this.
They said that they think we should be able to find a more reasonable resolution here.
They told her that SNC's next board meeting is on Thursday, which was September the 20th.
They also mentioned the Quebec election context.
They asked my chief if someone has suggested the outside idea to the PPSC and asked whether or not we were open to this suggestion.
They wanted to know if my deputy could do it.
In response, my Chief of Staff stressed to them prosecutorial independence and potential concerns about the interference in the independence of the prosecutorial functions.
Mr. Bouchard...
Let me stop there just for a second.
When she says chief, she's referring to chief of staff.
So that's a political position.
When she says deputy, that's the head civil servant working in the Justice Department.
I know this is a little bit technical, but I think the devil hears in the details.
So you hear again the mention of Quebec election.
And the idea is, well, look, that head of public prosecutions, she's so hardline and you're so hard line.
Can we give you another lawyer?
Can we get a second opinion?
We can find some lawyer who says it's okay.
Will you go for that?
Imagine that.
Imagine the lobbying to say, well, can we replace your judgment with some lawyer that we're going to basically make sure gives you the proper outcome here?
It's already very murky.
Listen to some more.
And Mr. Marquez kept telling her that they didn't want to cross any lines, but they asked my chief of staff to follow up with me directly on this matter.
To be clear, I was fully aware of the conversations between September the 4th and 16th that I have outlined.
I had regularly had been regularly briefed by my staff from the moment this first arose and had also reviewed all materials that had been produced.
Further, my view had also formed at this point.
Through the work of my department, my minister's office, and work I conducted on my own, that is what was inappropriate, that it was inappropriate for me to intervene in the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions in this case and to pursue a deferred prosecution agreement.
In the course of reaching this view, I discussed the matter on a number of occasions with my then deputy so that she was aware of my view, raised concerns on a number of occasions with my deputy minister about the appropriateness of communications we were receiving from outside the department, and also raised concerns about some of the options that she had been suggesting.
On September 17th, the deputy minister said that finance had told her that they wanted to make sure that Kathleen understands the impact if we do not do nothing in this case.
Given the potential concerns raised by this conversation, I discussed this later with my deputy.
This same day, September 17th, I have my one-on-one meeting with the Prime Minister that I requested a couple of weeks ago.
When I walked in, the clerk of the Privy Council was in attendance as well.
While the meeting was not about the issue of SNC and DPAs, the Prime Minister raised the issue immediately.
The Prime Minister asked me to help out to find a solution here for SNC, citing that if there is no DPA, there would be many jobs lost and that SNC would move from Montreal.
In response, I explained to him the law and what I have the ability to do and not do under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act around issuing directives or assuming conduct of prosecutions.
I told him that I had done my due diligence and had made up my mind on SNC and that I was not going to interfere with the decision of the director.
Let's just stop there for a second.
I have my disagreements with Jodi Wilson-Raybold.
I think she's very left-wing.
I disagree with some of her takes on Aboriginal land claims.
But that's got nothing to do with this.
Let me say my unvarnished admiration for her belief in the law, for her love for the law.
She's left-winger.
That's not what we're talking about.
We're talking about someone who is willing to look in the eye, the prime minister, the most powerful politician in the country, her boss, someone at whose pleasure she serves, and say, boss, you're asking me to make a decision that is contrary to my good conscience and the law, and I've done my due diligence and I've done my homework, and it certainly sounds like she had.
I can't remember seeing courage like that in Canadian politics in my life.
In my life.
And I just know in my bones that Justin Trudeau looks at Jody Wilson-Raybold the same way he looks at Bardish Chagar or Maryam Monseff or Catherine McKenna or any of the other people that he told us all were hired just to meet some race or gender quota.
Prime Minister's Stand00:10:10
Remember that because it's 2015 line, how proud he was?
He chose Jodi Wilson-Raybold because she was Aboriginal and a woman.
He said as much.
Little did he know that he was choosing someone who actually loves the law and respects it and is a servant to the law.
I am so impressed.
I must say I am moved by that.
I am deeply moved that someone would look the prime minister in the eye and say, I will not bend to you.
And the irony and the layer of deliciousness here is that, of course, we all know, and Justin Trudeau himself admits that he doesn't do his due diligence on anything.
He doesn't read the briefing notes.
Stephen Harper was famous for reading all the briefing notes he got from the civil service, and it became known if he did a memo, the prime minister would read it and take it seriously.
It was actually a morale boost because he knew the top man knew what was going on.
Everyone knows Justin Trudeau is just a backslappy, handshakey selfie king.
So for him to say, come on, Jody, come on.
I got to tell you, it's so, it's doubly, triply impressive that she held the line.
She's left-wing, I don't care.
I care about the fact that for the first time in a generation, we have a politician of such moral fiber that she would look the most powerful politician in the country in the eye and say, I will stand with the law against your advice, sir.
That's amazing.
Keep rolling.
In response, the prime minister reiterated his concerns.
I then explained how this came about and that I had received a section 13 note from the DPP earlier in September and that I had considered the matter very closely.
Further, I further stated that I was very clear on my role as the Attorney General and that I am not prepared to issue a directive in this case that it would not be appropriate.
The Prime Minister again cited the potential loss of jobs and SNC moving.
Then, to my surprise, the clerk stated, or started to make the case, for the need for a DPA.
He said, quote, there is a board meeting on Thursday, September the 20th with stockholders, end quote.
Quote, again, they will likely be moving to London if this happens, and there is an election in Quebec soon, end quote.
Remember who we're talking about now.
Remember, chief refers to chief of staff.
That's a political boss for every cabinet minister.
Deputy refers to the deputy minister who is a professional civil servant who carries out the will of the minister and the chief of staff.
And the clerk of the privy council, the clerk, they're saying that, his name is Michael Warnick.
He is the prime minister's action man.
The prime minister makes a political decision and the clerk affects that decision.
The clerk gives advice and he conducts the will of the politician.
But the clerk is not a politician.
The clerk is neutral.
He gives advice to the boss and then takes instructions for the boss.
But look what has happened here.
The clerk of the Privy Council, according to Jody Wilson-Raybold, said that she, one of the reasons she must drop the prosecution against these confessed criminals.
I just want to let you know, SNC Lavalan does not dispute that they paid illegal bribes, 48 million bucks, and that over $100 million in money went missing from Libya and all sorts of other crimes, including in Montreal.
So that's not in dispute.
I don't have to say alleged criminals.
They are criminals.
The so-called nonpartisan chief of the public service, the clerk of the Privy Council is his actual title, was saying that the Justice Minister should change her mind because of the potential impact it would have on the election, on the election.
That is not the business of the civil service.
That is a liberal goal.
That is impermissible.
That is illegal.
That is against the rule of law.
And that is against Section 139.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
I'll show you that a little bit later.
Keep rolling this fascinating tape.
At that point, the Prime Minister jumped in, stressing that there is an election in Quebec and that, quote, I am an MP in Quebec, the member for Papineau, end quote.
I was quite taken aback.
My response, and I vividly remember this as well, was to ask the Prime Minister a direct question while looking him in the eye.
I asked, quote, are you politically interfering with my role, my decision as the Attorney General?
I would strongly advise against it, end quote.
The Prime Minister said, no, no, no, we just need to find a solution.
The clerk then said that he spoke to my deputy and she said that I could speak to the director.
I responded by saying no, I would not.
That would be inappropriate.
I further explained to the clerk and the prime minister that I had had a conversation with my deputy about options and what my position was on the matter.
As a result, I agreed to and undertook to the prime minister that I would have a conversation with my deputy and the clerk, but that these conversations would not change my mind.
I also said that my staff and my officials are not authorized to speak to the PPSC.
And then we finally discussed the issue that I had asked for the meeting in the first place.
I left the meeting and immediately debriefed with my staff about what was said with respect to SNC and DPAs.
On September 19th, I met with the clerk as I had undertaken to the Prime Minister.
The meeting was one-on-one in my office.
The clerk brought up job losses and that this is not about the Quebec election or the Prime Minister being a Montreal MP.
He said that he has not seen the Section 13 note.
The clerk said that he understands that SNC is going back and forth with the DPP and that they want more information.
He said that, quote, Yakobuchi is not a strengthening violet, end quote.
He referenced the September 20th date and that they don't have anything from the DPP.
He said that the Prime Minister is very concerned about the confines of my role as Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions.
He reported that the Prime Minister is very aware of my role as the Attorney General of Canada.
I told the clerk again that I instructed my deputy is not to get, that my deputy is not to get in touch with the director and that given my review of the matter, I would not speak to her directly regarding the DPA, ADPA.
I offered that if SNC were to send, I offered to the clerk, if that SNC were to send me a letter expressing their concerns, their public interest argument, it would be permissible and I would appropriately forward it directly to the director of public prosecutions.
Later that day, my chief of staff had a phone call with Elder Marquez and Mathieu Bouchard from the Prime Minister's office.
They wanted an update on what was going on regarding the DPAs since, quote, we don't have a ton of time, end quote.
She relayed my summary of the meeting with the clerk and the prime minister.
Mathieu and Elder also raised the idea of a quote informal reach out, end quote, to the DPP.
My chief of staff said that she knew I was not comfortable with that as it looked like and probably did constitute political interference.
So let's say you're accused of a crime.
$48 million and paying $48 million in bribes in a third world country to corrupt a government to steal money or corruption in the Montreal super hospital.
These are just a few of the various crimes SNC Lavalon has committed.
Let's say you're a fraudster.
Let's say it's a violent crime.
And you want to have a plea bargain.
You want to get off easy.
And the prosecutor says, no, we got you dead to rights.
You know, you've confessed everything.
We have the proof of it.
You're going to jail, buddy.
And you try and you try and you try and the prosecutor is locked in and you go all the way up to the justice minister and they're locked in.
So you start making the political calls and did you hear that?
Hey, do you mind if we reach out informally?
What do you mean by informally?
Formally is exactly what Jody Wilson-Raybold talked about.
Send a public letter to the justice minister.
I will give that letter to the DPP.
That's the Department of Public Prosecutions, the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Everything in paper, on the record, everything public, no secrets, no smoky backrooms, no secret deals.
If they've got something to say, they can say it to me and I'll pass it on to the DPP for their consideration.
And Gerald Butz's prime minister's office, Trudeau's office, had a couple guys say, hey, do you mind if we, you know, reach out and formally say, what is this?
Is this the Labranos?
Why, yes, it is.
And I say again, imagine the courage it took to stand up to this.
Where did she get that courage?
Where did she get that courage?
Folks, have you ever seen anything like that?
You're standing up to Trudeau and all his henchmen, and they just don't seem to be able to take a no for an answer, but she's not wavering.
I never knew, I never knew that Canada had a justice minister like that.
And you know, that's a hell of a thing.
Here, keep watching.
Asked whether that was true if it wasn't the Attorney General herself, but if it was her staff or the deputy minister.
My chief of staff said, yes, it would, and offered a call with me directly.
Courageous Stand Against Trudeau00:11:21
They said that they will regroup and get back to you on that.
Still, on September the 19th, I spoke to Minister Mourneau on this matter when we were in the house.
He again stressed the need to save jobs, and I told him that engagements from his office to mine on SNC had to stop, that they were inappropriate.
They did not stop.
On September the 20th, my chief of staff had phone calls with Mr. Chin and Justin Toe, both members of the Minister of Finance's office, about DPAs and SNC.
You know, I saw Bill Mourneau, the crooked finance minister, and I say that not as an insult, but as an observation.
He, of course, is being convicted for breaching the Conflict of Interest Act.
He forgot about his French villa and his ethics disclosures, etc., etc.
He did not recuse himself when he changed the pension rules, even though he has a huge stake in a pension company.
The guy's a crook.
But he personally lobbied, and his staff, Ben Chin and other staff, lobbied.
And did you hear her?
She said that Bill Mourneau talked to her about it.
She said, stop bothering me.
Stop this.
But it did not stop.
These handsy male feminists, these male feminists, they just don't take no for an answer now, do they?
Here's the point, though.
About a month ago, about three and a half weeks ago, when the Globe and Mail broke this story, and congratulations again to Bob Fife, Steve Chase, and Sean Fine.
We showed you and they reported the more than 50 lobbying meetings that were held by SNC Lavland.
They were going crazy.
Ben Chin, Bill Mourneau, they were all on the list.
Why is it that you've got hundreds of reporters in Ottawa and none of them have pressed Bill Mourneau or Ben Chin or any of these other people for what did you do?
By the way, the Canadian ambassador to the United States, McNaughton, David McNaughton, was lobbied several times.
Why hasn't he been scrummed on this?
This is a scandal that's not just political or ethical.
It is now criminal.
The Attorney General is saying, stop pestering me.
Stop pestering me.
The decision is made.
We are prosecuting the criminals.
And the Libranos just won't stop.
I wonder if any reporter in the entire media party is going to put a question to Ben Chin, their former CBC colleague, or Bill Mourneau.
That's, to me, an absolutely killer revelation.
Bill Mourneau, who we know is crooked, he's already broken the Conflict of Interest Act, sitting finance minister, broke the law.
Whoa.
Pestering, pestering, pressuring, drop the charges, drop the charges, drop the charge, drop the charges, drop the charges, stop, stop.
And he wouldn't stop.
And he wouldn't stop.
Go to jail, Bill Mourneau.
Go to jail, Bill Mourneau.
Watch some more.
At this point, after September the 20th, there was an apparent pause in communicating with myself or my chief of staff on the SNC matter.
We did not hear from anyone again until October the 18th, when Mathieu Bouchard called my chief of staff and asked that we, I, look at the option of seeking an external legal opinion on the DPP's decision not to extend an invitation to negotiate a DPA.
This would become a recurring theme for some time in messages from the PMO that an external review should be done of the DPP's decision.
The next day as well, SNC filed a federal court application seeking to quash the DPP's decision to not enter into a remediation agreement with them.
In my view, this necessarily put to rest any notion that I might speak to or intervene with the DPP or that external review could take place.
The matter was now before the courts and a judge was being asked to look at the DPP's discretion.
However, on October the 26, 2018, when my chief of staff spoke to Matthew Bouchard and communicated to him now that given that SNC has now filed a federal court filed in federal court seeking to review the DPP's decision, surely we had moved past the idea of the Attorney General intervening or getting an opinion on the same question.
So do you understand what's happened here?
Ironically, SNC Lavalan did the ethical thing.
They didn't like the decision by the prosecutor to go ahead, the DPP, that's the director of public prosecutions.
So they're going ahead with the prosecution.
They refused to give him the plea bargain, the deferred prosecution.
So what's the right thing to do in a country with the rule of law?
You appeal that to a judge and say, judge, come on.
We ought to get the plea deal.
Now, it would be very unusual for a judge to take away that discretion from a prosecutor.
But ironically, SNC Lavalan did the right thing.
But the government didn't.
The liberals didn't.
The Libranos didn't.
They were now interfering with it while it was before a judge.
It was before a judge.
And the Libranos were still trying to get Jody Wilson-Raybel to drop it.
How incredible that SNC Lavalan in this very slivery moment were actually, SNC Lavalan was actually more ethical than the liberals.
Keep watching.
Mathieu replied that he was still interested in an external legal opinion idea.
Could she not get an external legal opinion on whether the DPP had exercised their discretion properly?
And then on the application itself, the Attorney General could intervene, seek to stay the proceedings, given that she was awaiting a legal opinion.
My chief of staff said that this would obviously be perceived as interference and her boss questioning the DPP's decision.
Mathieu said that if, six months from the election, SNC announces they're moving their headquarters out of Canada, that is bad.
He said, quote, we can have the best policy in the world, but we need to get reelected, end quote.
Well, there you have it.
Do you see the point she's made about four times?
If you're talking about job losses, if you're talking about the well-being of our country, that is a legitimate public policy question for the Director of Public Prosecutions to take.
I believe it.
There is a provision in the law for these plea bargains.
It was taken into account.
Frankly, like when Enron went broke or Arthur Anderson went broke, a lot of good people who were working those companies who weren't crooks, they just got other jobs.
The corporate entity had to be broken up because it was so rotten to the bone.
If SNC Lavaland leaves the country or is broken up, there's a lot of good engineers who will be snapped up right away.
Just the corrupt structure and corporate culture will be lost.
So it is legit.
It's legitimate to say, don't prosecute this company because the disastrous effect on our country is too large.
You can have that debate, and they did, and Jody Wilson-Raybold said, I choose justice.
But you cannot say, oh, by the way, Justin Trudeau is personally going for re-election in six months.
We can't have this because we love Justin Trudeau and we love the Liberal Party.
Do you see the difference?
One is a legitimate public policy issue that the Attorney General said, I've thought about it.
I've contemplated it.
I'm not persuaded by it.
Prosecute.
The others, come on, come on.
I've got a re-election coming.
Come on, come on, come on.
No, How impressive is this woman?
Keep going.
He said that everybody knows that this is the Attorney General's decision, but that he wants to make sure that all options are being canvassed.
Mathieu said that if, at the end of the day, the Attorney General is not comfortable, that is fine.
He just doesn't want any doors to be closed.
Jessica, my chief of staff, said that I was always happy to speak to him should he wish.
In mid-November, the PMO requested that I meet with Mathieu Bouchard and Elder Marquez to discuss the matter, which I did on November 22nd.
This meeting was quite long.
I would say about an hour and a half.
I was irritated by having to have the meeting as I had already told the Prime Minister, etc., that a DPA on SNC was not going to happen, that I was not going to issue a directive.
Mathieu in this meeting did most of the talking.
He was trying to tell me that there were options and that I needed to find a solution.
I took them through the DPP Act, Section 15, Section 10, and talked about the prosecutorial independence as a constitutional principle and that they were interfering.
I talked about the Section 13 note, which they said they had never received, but I reminded them that we sent it to them in September.
Mathieu and Elder continued to plead their case, talking about if I'm not sure in my decision that we could hire an eminent person to advise me, they were kicking the tires.
I said no.
My mind had been made up and they needed to stop.
This was enough.
I will briefly pause at this moment to comment on my own state of mind.
In my role as Attorney General, I had received the decision of the DPP in September, had reviewed the matter, made a decision on what was appropriate given a DPA, and communicated that to the Prime Minister.
I had also taken additional steps that the Prime Minister asked me to, such as meeting with the clerk.
In my view, the communications and efforts to change my mind on this matter should have stopped.
Various officials also urged me to take partisan political considerations into account, which it was clearly improper for me to do so.
We either have a system that is based on the rule of law, the independence of prosecutorial functions, and respect for those charged to use their discretion and powers in a particular way, or we do not.
While in our system of government, policy-oriented discussion amongst people at early points in this conversation may be appropriate.
The consistent and enduring efforts, even in the face of judicial proceedings on the same matter, and in the face of a clear decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General to continue and even intensify such efforts raises serious red flags in my view.
Assassination Threats00:15:07
Yet, this is what continued to happen.
On December the 5th of 2018, I met with Jerry Butts.
We had both sought out this meeting.
I wanted to speak about a number of things, including bringing up SNC and the barrage of people hounding me and my staff.
Towards the end of our meeting, which was in the Chateau Laurie.
I just want to stop there for a second.
The barrage of people hounding me and my staff.
I believe it.
She mentioned 10 phone calls, 10 meetings, emails, texts.
Could you withstand that?
And these are not from strangers or people of modest station.
This is the Prime Minister himself, the finance minister, chiefs of staff, senior advisors, and now Gerald Butts, the godfather of the Labranos.
Gerald Butz, the fixer, the smasher, the basher.
They were going to meet.
And she just emphasized, this cake was baked.
This was done.
There was no more meddling.
There may have been a time to raise legitimate public policy questions with her.
That time was done.
That ship has sailed.
That plane is in the air.
They said, no, no, no, call it back, undo it, unscramble the egg.
We are going to do this for SNC Lavalan.
But more importantly, and this is the crime, we're going to do it so we win the election in Quebec.
You can't do it that way.
You can't let your friends off the hook for a criminal prosecution because of your own interest.
Do you see the difference?
You can say, for the interest of 10,000 jobs, I will let the criminal go.
Okay, that's not great.
But you can make that argument.
And they certainly made it, but they failed to convince.
What you cannot do is we're going to let these criminals go because I got to get elected.
That is a crime.
Section 1392 of the criminal code.
I'll show it to you a little bit later.
But now we're at the Come to Jesus movement.
And his name is Gerald Butts.
He thinks he's Jesus.
He thinks he is for his whole life.
He's been the guardian, the babysitter, the speechwriter, the fixer, the enforcer.
He is the godfather, or at least the conciliary to Trudeau.
They've been friends since college.
They're inseparable.
Trudeau himself doesn't know anything about anything.
We know he doesn't read the files.
His staff couldn't do it.
Now Gerald Butts was weighing in.
But I say again, the matter was done.
The matter was done.
Okay, what did Gerald Butts have to say?
This is unbelievable.
I raised how I needed everybody to stop talking to me about SNC as I had made up my mind and the engagements were inappropriate.
Jerry then took over the conversation and said how we need a solution on the SNC stuff.
He said I needed to find a solution.
I said no and I referenced the preliminary inquiry and the judicial review.
I said further that I gave the clerk the only appropriate solution that could have happened and that was the letter idea that was not taken up.
Jerry talked to me about how the statute was a statute passed by Harper and that he does not like the law.
I said something like that is the law that we have.
On December the 7th, I received a letter from the prime.
Hey, I got a question for you.
I say again, and maybe you agree with me by this point, I've never seen anyone show this political courage and independence in my life.
I'm 47 years old.
I've never seen this before.
Have you?
Have you?
Can you name me anyone?
Amazing.
And Gerald Butts says, oh, fine.
It's the law.
I don't like the law.
That's a Harper law.
I don't like the law.
Don't follow the law.
Can you imagine him?
And here's my point.
How many times has he said that before?
How many times has he said that before?
And they've gone along with it.
Do you think Bartis Chagger?
Do you think Catherine McKenna?
Do you think any of the tokens, the quotas, the fakers, the posers, the Maryam Monsas, the Kirsty Dungans, the Billmore nose?
How many times has he said that before?
I don't care what the law is.
The law is for little people.
How many times has he said that before?
And they've said, yes, boss.
Yes, boss.
Yes, boss.
How many times has he said that before?
Do you think this was really the first time in his life he said that?
He thought she was just window dressing.
He thought she was just a twofer Aboriginal woman.
Check, check.
I'm doing great in the selfie department.
No, no, she was the first person of courage to serve in this government.
And my God, she spoke truth to power.
Keep rolling.
Prime Minister dated December 6th, attaching a letter from the CEO of SNC Lavalin dated October the 15th.
I responded to the Prime Minister's letter on December 6th, noting that the matter is before the court, so I cannot comment on it, and that the decision, re-a DPA, was one for the DPP, which is independent of my office.
This brings me to the final events in the chronology, the ones that signal, in my experience, the final escalation in efforts by the Prime Minister's office to interfere in this matter.
On December 18th of 2018, my chief of staff was urgently summoned to a meeting with Jerry Butts and Katie Talford to discuss SNC.
They wanted to know where I, me, am at in terms of finding a solution.
They told her that they felt like the issue was getting worse and that I was not doing anything.
They referenced a possible call with the prime minister and the clerk the next day.
I will now read to you a transcript of the most relevant sections of a text conversation between my chief of staff and I almost immediately after that meeting.
Jessica.
Basically, they want a solution, nothing new.
They want external counsel retained to give you an opinion on whether you can review the DPP's decision here and whether you should in this case.
I told them that would be interference.
Jerry said, quote, Jess, there is no solution here that does not involve some interference, end quote.
There is no solution here that does not involve some interference.
That's wrong, of course.
Jody Wilson-Raybold chose the solution that does not involve interference.
It's called the rule of law.
Let the courts decide.
Who knows?
Maybe the Department of Public Prosecutions, the Director of Public Prosecutions, will fail and maybe SNC will be acquitted.
That's a possible outcome.
I think we all know that's not going to happen.
So no interference is necessary to have a lawful judicial solution, which is what the little people get.
But Gerald Butts was saying in the plainest language possible, we're going to interfere one way or another.
There's no solution here that doesn't have interference.
Go to jail, Gerald Butts.
Do not pass go.
Do not collect $200.
Go to jail, you criminals.
Section 139.2 of the criminal code.
I'll read it later.
Keep watching, Jody Wilson-Raybold.
At least they are finally being honest about what they are asking you to do.
Don't care about the PPSC's independence.
Katie was like, quote, we don't want to debate legalities anymore, end quote.
They keep being like, we aren't lawyers, but there has to be some solution here.
Mojag, I text.
So where were things left?
Jessica, so unclear.
I said what, of course, let you know about the conversation.
And they said that they were going to kick the tires with a few people on this tonight.
The clerk was waiting outside when she left, when I left.
But they said that they want to set up a call between you and the Prime Minister and the clerk tomorrow.
I said that, of course, you'd be happy to speak to your boss.
They seem quite keen on the idea of you retaining an ex-Supreme Court of Canada judge to get advice on this.
Katie Telford thinks it gives us cover in the business community and the legal community, and that it would allow the Prime Minister to say we were doing something.
She was like, quote, if Jodi is nervous, we would, of course, line up all kinds of people to write op-eds saying that what she is doing is proper, end quote.
Oh, did you catch that?
Hey, Jodi, if you're feeling a little uncomfortable about breaking the law, you know, the first time you do it, we all feel that way too.
It passes.
But if we can help you break the law, we've got some friends in the media and we can get a lot of columns saying you didn't break the law, you were being a real visionary.
Did you hear that?
They said, oh, don't you worry.
We'll get a lot of people saying you did the right thing.
That's what $595 million in bailout money does.
Wow.
Keep rolling.
On December the 19th, 2018, I was asked to have a call with the clerk.
It was a fairly lengthy call, and I took the call from home, and I was on my own by myself.
Given what occurred the previous day with my chief of staff, I was determined to end all interference and conversations about this matter once and for all.
Here is part of what the clerk and I discussed.
The clerk said he was calling about DPA's SNC.
He said he wanted to pass on where the prime minister is at.
He spoke about the company's board and the possibility of them selling out to someone else, moving their headquarters and job losses.
He said that the prime minister wants to be able to say that he has tried everything he can within the legitimate toolbox.
The clerk said that the prime minister is quite determined, quite firm, but he wants to know why the DPA route, which Parliament provided for, isn't being used.
He said, quote, I think he is going to find a way to get it done one way or another.
So he's just kind, he's, he is in that kind of mood, and I wanted you to be aware of it, end quote.
He's going to get it done one way or another.
He's in that kind of mood.
You know how he gets.
He's going to get it done one way or another.
So are you going to do it the hard way or are you going to do it the easy way?
Think back just a few weeks ago to the lies that Trudeau told with that winning smile.
Oh, no, there's no pressure.
No, no, you can tell she supports me.
What a liar.
What a liar.
Keep rolling.
The clerk said he didn't know if the prime minister was planning on calling me directly or if he is thinking about getting somebody else to give him some advice.
You know, he does not want to do anything outside of the box of what is legal or proper.
He said that the prime minister wants to understand more to give him advice on this or give you advice on this if you want to feel more comfortable you are not doing anything inappropriate or outside the frame.
I told the clerk that I was 100% confident that I was doing nothing inappropriate.
I again reiterated my confidence in where I am in my views on SNC and the DPA have not changed.
I reiterated this is a constitutional principle of prosecutorial independence.
I warned the clerk in this meeting that he was in this call that we were treading on dangerous ground here.
I also issued a stern warning because as the attorney general, I cannot act in a manner and the prosecution cannot act in a manner that is not objective, that isn't independent.
I cannot act in a partisan way and I cannot be politically motivated.
This all screams of that.
The clerk wondered whether anyone could speak to the director about the context around this or get her to explain her reasonings.
The clerk told me that he was going to have to report back to the prime minister before he leaves.
He said again that the prime minister was in a pretty firm frame of mind and this on this about this and that he was a bit worried.
I want to remind you who this clerk is because we hear the clerk look.
It sounds like such a modest position, the clerk.
Like you go to a store and the front clerk or the bank clerk.
The clerk is the clerk of the Privy Council.
It's the most senior civil servant, but utterly, utterly partisan in this case.
Doing the bidding of the Quebec Liberal Party or the Liberal Party in Canada.
I want to show you just a clip of the clerk in this same committee a few days ago, screaming at the world, calling it anonymous rumors, gossip, defamation, talking about Twitter trolls, saying if people keep asking questions, there might be an assassination, saying that comments on Twitter are vomit.
It was the most insane misconduct I've ever seen of any so-called independent civil servant.
And I think everyone was shocked.
Well, now we know why.
He wasn't worried about being a witness.
He was worried about being a suspect.
He himself got his hands dirty in these bad, immoral, unethical, illegal acts.
Take a look at this grotesque man.
The Globe Mail article contains errors, unfounded speculation, and in some cases is simply defamatory.
In my observation and my experience, they have always, always conducted themselves to the highest standards of integrity.
You may not like their politics or their policies or their tweets, but they have always been guided by trying to do the right thing.
Indicated that it was entirely her call to make, that she was the decider.
And that is a message that the Prime Minister conveyed to the minister on every situation that I'm aware of.
I worry about the rising tide of incitements to violence when people use terms like treason and traitor in open discourse.
Those are the words that lead to assassination.
I'm worried that somebody's going to be shot in this country this year during the political campaign.
Principles of Nonpartisanship00:10:54
Yeah, that's the clerk.
I think we know what was agitating him.
He's not worried about assassination.
Where did that come from?
Other than the political assassination of his own boss.
All right, back to Jody Wilson-Waybold.
Asked what he's worried about.
The clerk then made the comment about how it is not good for the prime minister and his attorney general to be at loggerheads.
I told the clerk that I was giving him my best advice and that if he did not accept that advice, then it is the prime minister's prerogative to do what he wants.
But I am trying to protect the prime minister from political interference or perceived political interference or otherwise.
The clerk acknowledged that, but said that the prime minister does not have the power to do what he wants.
All the tools are in my hands, he said.
I said that I was having thoughts of the Saturday night massacre, but that I was confident that I had given the prime minister my best advice to protect him and to protect the constitutional principle of prosecutorial independence.
The clerk said that he was worried about a collision between the prime minister, because the prime minister is pretty firm about this.
He told me that he had seen the prime minister a few hours ago and that this is really important to him.
That is essentially where the conversation ended, and I did not hear from the prime minister the next day.
I'm just letting everybody know that I've just, as Chair, I choose to give you more than 30 minutes.
You've exceeded it.
I'd like you to be able to finish your statement.
Is there anybody that has any objection to that?
Okay, so please continue.
I don't think anyone in the audience does either.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On January the 7th, I received a call from the Prime Minister and was informed I was being shuffled out of my role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
I will not go into details of this call or subsequent communications about the shuffle, but I will say that I stated I believe the reason was because of the SNC matter.
They denied this to be the case.
On January the 11th, 2019, the Friday before the shuffle, my former deputy minister is called by the clerk and told that the shuffle is happening and that she will be getting a new minister.
As part of this conversation, the clerk tells the deputy that one of the first conversations that the new minister will be expected to have with the prime minister will be on SNC Lavalan.
In other words.
There it is.
10 phone calls, 10 meetings, texts.
Something's going to happen.
Interference is going to happen.
Oh boy, it's going to happen one way or another.
They've been talking to this Justice Minister September, October, November, December.
They're sick of it.
And they say the first matter business we're going to do with the new Attorney General is get this done.
And wouldn't you know it?
Wouldn't you know it?
Who's the new Attorney General?
His name is David Lebede, and he's from Montreal.
And he was lobbied by SNC Lavalan.
And actually earlier this month, he said to the Globe and Mail that he was considering still letting them off the hook.
Crooked crooks are crooked.
Keep watching.
Words that the new minister will need to be prepared to speak to the prime minister on this file.
The deputy recounts this to my chief of staff who tells me about the conversation.
My narrative stops here.
I must reiterate to the committee my concern outlined in the letter to the chair yesterday.
That is, Order in Council number 2019-0105 addresses only my time as the Attorney General of Canada and therefore does nothing to release me from my restrictions that apply to communications while I proudly served as the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
And in relation.
That's an interesting point there because remember, she didn't leave cabinet.
She was still in cabinet.
And she just said there, I can't talk about what came later because Justin Trudeau did not waive that solicitor client privilege.
There was no waiver for that.
She's basically telegraphing to us that more was said that she can't say.
And I understand that later there was a question, did you interfere in the prosecution of the Admiral or the Vice Admiral out in Halifax over the shipbuilding case?
And I understand she said, I can't speak to that.
And like I say, how many more times?
How many more times has Gerald Butt said the law doesn't apply to us?
How many more times?
Keep watching, keep rolling.
To my resignation from that post or my presentation to cabinet after I resigned.
This time period includes communications on topics that some members of the committee have explored with other witnesses and about which there have been public statements by others.
The order in counsel leaves in place the various constraints, in particular, cabinet confidence, that there are on my ability to speak freely on matters that occurred after I left my post as Attorney General.
Even with those constraints, I hope that through my narrative today, the committee and everyone across the country who is listening has a clear idea of what I experienced and what I know of who did what and what was communicated.
I hope and expect the facts speak for themselves.
I imagine Canadians now fully understand that in my view these events constituted pressure to intervene in a matter and that this pressure or political interference to intervene was not appropriate.
However, Canadians can judge this for themselves as we now have the same frame of information.
Lastly, as I've said previously, It has always been my view that the Attorney General of Canada must be nonpartisan, more transparent in the principles that are the basis of decisions, and in this respect, always willing to speak truth to power.
In saying this, I was reflecting what I understood to be the vital importance of the rule of law and prosecutorial independence in our democracy.
My understanding of this has helped shape, help, has been shaped by some lived experiences.
I am, of course, a lawyer.
I was a prosecutor in the downtown east side of Vancouver.
So I come to this view as a trained professional and committed to certain values as key to our system of order.
But my understanding of the rule of law has also been shaped by my experiences as an Indigenous person and as an Indigenous leader.
The history of Crown Indigenous relations in this country includes a history of the rule of law not being respected.
Indeed, one of the main reasons for the urgent need for justice and reconciliation today is that in the history of our country, we have not always upheld foundational values such as the rule of law in relations to Indigenous peoples.
She's going a little heavy on Aboriginal rights here.
But you know what?
First of all, I don't mind.
Second of all, I think that's part of the point here.
This is someone whose family was, you know, not, didn't come from wealth and privilege.
She's not a trust fund millionaire silver spoon baby like Trudeau.
Trudeau never worked a day in his life, inherited the money from Pierre Trudeau, who never worked a day in his life and inherited it all from his father, Charlie.
I think there's something to this.
She actually believes in something other than just herself.
And I think she actually loves the law.
I think she has the wrong interpretations of it ideologically.
That's not what we're talking about today.
I actually think that she was immensely proud of being the first Aboriginal Justice Minister.
She thought, I'm not going to sell that out.
I'm not going to let that be profane and cheapened by some frat boy from Montreal who doesn't understand the importance of this position.
So let her talk about Aboriginal issues.
Although you may think that they are not germane, I think it goes to who she is.
And you're damn straight, the first Aboriginal woman justice minister in Canadian history wasn't going to sell out all of her principles and the rule of law just for some fraternity boy from Montreal asking for a favor.
Let the tape roll.
We're almost done.
And I have seen the negative impacts for freedom, equality, and a just society this can have firsthand.
So when I pledged to serve Canadians as your Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I came to it with a deeply ingrained commitment to the rule of law and the importance of acting independently of partisan, political, and narrow interests in all matters.
When we do not do that, I firmly believe and know we do worse as a society.
I will conclude by saying this.
I was taught to always be careful what you say because you cannot take it back.
I was taught to always hold true to your core values and principles and to act with integrity.
These are the teachings of my parents, my grandparents, and my community.
I come from a long line of matriarchs and I'm a truth teller in accordance with the laws and traditions of our big house.
This is who I am, and this is who I always will be.
Gala Kusla.
Thank you.
Well, that's a little longer than we normally go.
I had recorded an interview for today.
We'll play it tomorrow instead.
I want to show you just one quick thing because I mentioned it several times.
Let me read to you the text from section 139.2 of the criminal code.
It goes to obstruction of justice.
There's also, let me just read it.
This is section 2.
Everyone who willfully attempts in any manner other than a manager described in subsection 1, which is bribes, to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.
10 years in prison for obstructing justice.
A few sections later, there's also a paragraph about intimidation.
Last Words on Obstruction00:02:27
I won't get into that now.
I think obstruction is really what we saw.
I'm certain that this reaches the bar for an RCMP investigation.
I'm certain more resignations must come.
Michael Wernick must resign.
We have to wrap this up because we have to put this video online for you to watch at 8 p.m.
But I know that Justin Trudeau is having a press conference.
What's he going to say other than to stammer, maybe hug some people, take some selfies?
What can he do?
I don't know.
Maybe he'll actually resign.
I don't think he ever was a substantive prime minister.
He just liked the trappings of it.
He liked being a mascot.
I don't think it's going to be fun for him anymore.
I'd say there's a 10% chance he actually resigns.
I think there's an 80% chance he just blathers, maybe announces a few more sacrificial lamps.
Katie Telford fired.
A few other people fired.
I don't know.
I'll tell you one thing.
I'm 47 years old.
This is the most interesting and explosive thing I've ever seen in Canadian politics.
I want to tell you one last thing.
I remember the Labranos from the last time.
Can I show you what I got right here?
When the Western Standard magazine shut down, I kept this.
Can you see this?
It's our front cover of a magazine, The Labranos.
It's about the ad scam.
And you can see the characters there.
Jean-Cretchin, Paul Martin.
Scott Bryson's there a lot younger, Alfonso Galliano.
Don't you remember some of those characters?
This was such a successful magazine.
We made a poster out of it.
I had it made into a wall hanging like that, and I've kept it.
What's the date on that?
May 16th, 2005.
That's 14 years ago.
And this is what brought down the last liberal government.
Shortly after this, Stephen Harper won election in 2006 and again in 2008.
You know what, I got to tell you, I had a feeling in my bones that the Labranos were back.
And I said to our team here, I say, you know that old poster we did back at the Western Standard.
Can you freshen up?
Can you put in the new faces?
And here's what our team came up with.
What do you think of that?
I think that's pretty good.
Can you recognize him there?
There's The Precious, Justin Trudeau.
There's Bill Morneau, Crook, Christy Freeland, there's Seamus O'Reagan just sort of staring.
Oh, there all there's Gerald Butts on the left and Katie Telford.
The Labranos.
Feeling Bones Prediction00:01:03
You know what?
I had a feeling in my bones this was going to happen.
So I said to the team, can you print up some posters?
And they say, yeah, boss.
And I said, all right.
So we have set up the website, thelebranos.com.
You knew, you knew I had that, right?
Thelebranos.com.
If you want to get a poster of this updated version, go to thelebranos.com.
We'll ship it to you.
We'll roll it up and we'll put it in one of those mailable tubes and we'll ship it to you.
I got to tell you, I thought Justin Trudeau was unbeatable, impervious, irresistible.
No, I would use all those words for Jody Wilson-Raybold.
My friends, that's the show for today.
Thanks for watching so long.
We're going to wrap it up there.
No time for a guest, no time for letters.
Just time to think about this fascinating, fascinating turn of events.
I think we might even go again tomorrow on it instead of what I had prepared for tonight.
There's so much here.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, see you at home.