Thread by @CharliePinkerto

The show’s about to begin. AG and Justice Minister David Lametti is about to testify at the House Justice committee as it looks into #LavScam. A thread will follow.

Lametti on what he can discuss:

1. Shawcross Doctrine
2. Discussions between the Attorney General and government colleagues
3. Remediation agreements

What he can't talk about, he says:
1. Conversations he didn't participate in
2. Matters covered by solicitor-client privilege (Take 2 drinks)
3. Matters discussed with cabinet
4. Any case before the courts

Nathalie Drouin, deputy Justice Minister and deputy AG is speaking now. She's explaining her position. She was appointed to the position in June 2017. Says she's taken part in a lot of conversations covered by solicitor-client privilege (2 more)

Conservative MP Michael Cooper puts forward a motion to have the witnesses sworn in before he asks any questions.

Liberals reject Cooper's motion to have the witnesses sworn in. Cooper asked him about any meetings he's had with SNC-Lavalin. Lametti recites a lobby record from May 30, 2017. Lametti said he doesn't recall the meeting.

Personal aside: That's the day before my birthday and I don't recall that day exactly either.

Cooper asks about a Lametti quote from Feb. 8 where he denied any wrongdoing by the PMO. Lametti says at that time his quote was accurate, from what he had seen.

Liberal MP Colin Fraser is up now. He's throwing underhand to Lametti, who's answering generalized questions about the Shawcross Doctrine and prosecutions. Lametti does say he's never been pressured by the PM.

NDP Justice Critic Murray Rankin up now. Starts by asking about JWR yesterday in the House. "Will she be allowed to speak her truth," he asks Lametti. The AG says he's doing his best to determine if she can, with respect to the legal boundaries in question (solicitor-client priv)

2 more drinks

Lametti and Rankin having a good old fashion lawyer-off. Rankin says JWR was not considered a lawyer at the time that she was AG, so solicitor-client privilege could not cover her conversations.

Rankin's now drilling down on solicitor-client privilege. Trying to find out *which* client can wave privilege.
"That's a very complex and layered question," Lametti says. Says academic literature makes solicitor-client privilege in the context of the AG very complex.

I lost track of drinks. Liberal MP Randy Boissonnault is up now. He led the way for the Libs at the first committee meeting, where they agreed to this limited investigation.

Boissonnault asks about the value of deferred prosecutions. Lametti explains how they're used. Boissonnault now takes a shot at Lisa Raitt (who's right across the table from her), citing an inference she made in QP a few days ago.

CORRECTION: Boissonnault is a him.

We're back to deferred prosecution agreements. Lametti says they're valuable to punish corporations without hurting their employees.

Liberal MP Ali Ehsassi is up. Asks what critics of remediation agreements have to say (those who say they don't punish the perpetrator). Lametti says its an alternative way of punishment. Drouin adds that it's a way to bring a corporation within compliance.

Ehsassi asks for an explanation of Shawcross Doctrine.
We've moved to a quote by Lametti – the "AG is not an island."
Lametti says he's open to conversations with the cabinet and the government, but when he makes decision as AG that it's his and his alone.

Conservative Deputy Leader Lisa Raitt is asking about when exactly the directive of a deferred prosecution agreement has to be published in the Canada Gazette. Raitt says it wouldn't have to be published immediately. Drouin seems to disagree, but is cut off.

Raitt's asking about the wording of the Shawcross Doctrine, with regards to influence. Lametti: "Attempting to influence is something that is part of the DNA of the political process."

Raitt asks if its not fair to assume that SNC-Lavalin was lobbying for a DPA. She asks Lametti about his knowledge of the SNC-Lavalin case, before becoming the AG. Lametti repeats that he had general knowledge as a Montreal MP, but that it was not brought up to him, specifically.

Raitt asks a not-so-hypothetical, hypothetical question about if the current AG should resign, if he/she should resign if he learned the past AG had been pressured. Lametti cites cabinet confidentiality and doesn't answer.

Liberal MP Iqra Khalid asks a question (which I mostly missed since I was battling with Twitter's character limit). Lametti goes into his life story. It sounded quite pleasant. He's interrupted by the opposition who says it's not relevant.

Khalid asks about conversations Lametti's had with the past AG. Lametti said he's had "the kind of pleasantries" that you would with someone formerly in your position, but "nothing substantive."

I'm getting thirsty. Can someone mention solicitor-client privilege?

Conservative MP Pierre Paul-Hus asks about the date of Sept. 4, when the director of public prosecutions Kathleen Roussel told SNC-Lavalin that she planned to go ahead with a prosecution on bribery and fraud charges.

He follows up with Q to Drouin about if JWR asked her for advice prior to a Sept 17 meeting with the Prime Minister, where they allegedly discussed SNC-Lavalin. Drouin cites solicitor-client privilege. I'm no longer parched.

Rookie Conservative MP Michael Barrett is up. He wants to know if Lametti will make a decision about if solicitor-client privilege will be waived by Tuesday (when its expected JWR will appear in front of committee). Lametti says it's a complicated matter.

Rankin is back up. He's back to a Feb. 8 quote from Lametti, in which he defended the government. Lametti says again that at that time he was truthful, given all the information he was aware of.

Bloq Quebecois MP Rhéal Fortin is in attendance and is approved 3 minutes of questions. Fortin is asking about AG's power to ask Public Prosecution Service to give a deferred prosecution agreement. Lametti refuses to answer, given ongoing litigation.

Fortin wants to know why Lametti hasn't given a deferred prosecution agreement yet and why JWR didn't issue a directive to the PPS to do so. His 3 minutes seem to be up. That's the end of Lametti and Drouin's time.

Anyone watching the feed may have noticed me scarfing down a granola bar behind Michael Wernick, Clerk of the Privy Council, who's now testifying.

He closes out his opening statement with an uppercut to the Globe and Mail, saying their reporting was inaccurate and in some cases, "defamatory." All of #LavScam follows their reporting.

Raitt's starting off questioning of Wernick. She's asking Wernick about a meeting between Wernick and SNC-Lavalin. She wants him to table any notes from that meeting. He says he doesn't have any, but he'll ask if others kept any and says he'll submit them if they do.

Boissonnault (whose name I have to keep Googling to get it right) is now up. He asks Wernick if he's ever seen inappropriate pressure applied to anyone from the PM's office about remediation agreements. Wernick's answer (in short) is no.

Boissonnault wants Wernick to repeat a part of his opening statement, where he explained that the rule-of-law is as intact as ever. Wernick does and explains his faith in cabinet and the ethics of the government.

Wernick says the ethics commissioner is the appropriate officer to deal with #LavScam.

Rankin's up. He's asking about solicitor-client privilege. Wernick – who's no law expert, he says – doesn't see JWR as a solicitor. He says she can't be the decider, which she was, and the solicitor.

It's Ehsassi's turn. He asks Wernick about media speculation and specifically a portion of the Globe story that says he privately rebuked JWR. "That did not happen," Wernick said.

Ehsassi asks for Wernick to explain how great he thinks our rule-of-law system is. Wernick trashes the U.S. system and says Canadians should be assured that their police/investigators/prosecutors operate under the rule-of-law.

Iqra Khalid is up. At this point Wernick is recycling some of what he's said about Canada's top-notch public servants, its rule-of-law system and how deferred prosecution agreements are used.

Wernick encourages all of the parties to explain during the election if they would keep deferred prosecution agreements as part of the law if they're elected.

Wernick testifies that all conversations between he and JWR were appropriate. He said he plans to tell the ethics commissioner those same thoughts. Also said he expects JWR to depict three interactions as concerning (I missed what they were.)

Cooper's up and his time was highjacked by Wernick who went into details about all interactions he's had with SNC-Lavalin. One came at a NAC Gala, when he was with his wife, they realized they were there, so they left and missed "a nice dinner." (I can't do it justice by tweet)

Wernick: "There was no inappropriate pressure put on (Jody Wilson-Raybould) at any time."

Wernick says if there was anytime that JWR thought she was being pressured that she could have called the PM anytime, any day. She says the PM is always available. And she never did.

If I don't tweet that Michael Wernick is giving a legendary testimony am I really here?

Paul-Hus asks about possibility that Wernick missed an occasion where JWR may have been pressured. Wernick calls that a hypothetical question, says JWR can speak to that next week, when she appears.

Barrett asks for a number of documents falling within the scope of #LavScam. Wernick says no. He's not obliged to without the committee agreeing to the request.

Rankin's picking through some of what Wernick said... Wernick responds by reaffirming his conclusion: JWR was not pressured, in his experience.

Wernick: Ethics commissioner's conclusion may come down to his view on a conversation between two people.

Fortin gets a couple of minutes again: Asks Wernick if he discussed his testimony with any members before hand. Wernick says he was introduced when he grabbed a coffee before the meeting, but other than that, no.

Wernick reaffirms something he said earlier: the cabinet shuffle decision was made because Trudeau needed to fill Scott Brison's old spot, keep a Nova Scotia MP in cabinet and maintain gender balance.

We're about to wrap up. Raitt wants Wernick to stay as long as possible, until 2:15, when QP starts. Doesn't seem like the Libs will budge to allow it. We're already over time.

False alarm. One too many solicitor-client privilege has me jumpy. The meeting will continue.

Wernick says there was "never, never, never" a cabinet conversation about SNC-Lavalin's prosecution. He also says when JWR addressed cabinet on Tuesday that Lametti left the room to recuse himself.

Boissonnault gets Wernick back on the topic of the effectiveness of Canada's government. Wernick says he doesn't want to get bogged down, so he plugs his website, where people can watch speeches he's made. I wish he plugged his soundcloud.

Fraser asks Wernick if he thinks there should be a public inquiry. Wernick explains that that's what the ethics commissioner and his office is for.
"Why do you need another instrument?" Wernick said rhetorically.

"I think that the ethics commissioner could get to the bottom of this fairly quickly," Wernick adds.

Wernick warns he's going to get someone at SNC-Lavalin in trouble. He said through lobbying, advertising, meetings with officials, etc. "They didn't get what they wanted. If it's a movie, it's a flop," he said.

That's a wrap.