Justice Committee on Feb. 21st, 2019

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

You mentioned cabinet confidentiality as well. Can it be invoked with respect to conversations between an attorney general and Prime Minister's Office officials such as Mr. Butts or others? Does it exist in that context?

[David Lametti]

Once again, you will know as a lawyer that I have been asked to give a legal opinion. That is an ongoing continuum, as other legal writers have described solicitor-client privilege, and that is part of the continuum. I simply cannot answer that question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you.

Mr. Boissonnault.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for being with us today.

You mentioned in your opening remarks the importance of remediation agreements and that we have this framework here in Canada. Could you share with us why a framework of remediation agreements is necessary in Canada and why it was put into law?

[David Lametti]

Certainly, I can do that.

A remediation agreement is another way that serious criminal behaviour can be prosecuted. It is another tool in the tool kit of our director of public prosecutions to go out and punish serious criminal behaviour without endangering innocent third parties, such as employees, such as pensioners, such as third party contractors and subcontractors who may be working on these various projects. It doesn't put the viability of the company itself into question but rather allows those who are to be prosecuted to be prosecuted, for the company to pay very serious penalties, and for supervision to be imposed on the company so that any corporate criminality as part of its culture can be changed.

It's a very important thing. Our allies have it—the United States, the U.K. Australia's contemplating it. It is an important element in the arsenal for combatting serious fraud internationally.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I think it's very interesting that you mention the third parties. I appreciate that.

I’d simply like some clarification about your opening remarks.

Before you were appointed Attorney General, did the Prime Minister’s Office or anyone acting on behalf of the Prime Minister’s Office ever speak to you about the SNC-Lavalin affair?

[David Lametti]

No, not before I was appointed. I had a general awareness of the situation, since I am a Montreal MP and this was discussed in the papers. As has already been said, I took part in a meeting with lobbyists in May 2017, but there was nothing aside from that.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

And in the exercise of your duties as Attorney General, no undue pressure was ever applied to you with respect to this file?

[David Lametti]

Never.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you.

During Question Period in the House last Wednesday, our Conservative colleague Ms. Lisa Raitt put the following question to you, which I will quote from Hansard:

I would like to ask the member, conveniently from Montreal, whether or not he has made a decision on the SNC-Lavalin issue.

What do you think Ms. Raitt meant by that comment?

[David Lametti]

Honestly, I have no idea. I am proud to be a Montrealer, and I am one by choice. I chose Montreal. It was in Montreal, at McGill University, that I received bilingual and bijural training, of which I am very proud. I settled in Montreal about thirty years ago. My children were born and educated there. It’s completely mad to suggest that a Montreal MP cannot act as Attorney General, no matter what the situation, but especially in this case. I find it shocking. I am proud to be a Montrealer, a Quebecker and a Canadian, and proud to be living in French in a very dynamic city like Montreal.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I congratulate you. I am a Franco-Albertan, and I was only able to begin to speak French when I arrived at Campus Saint-Jean. I am proud that a francophile from Quebec is in this position.

Minister, did you know that in the entire history of Canada and the Conservative Party, that party has only appointed three Justice ministers from Quebec? I think it’s important to put that on the record.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

On a point of order, Chair, what is the relevance?

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Let's get back to the pointed questions on this topic.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

On remediation agreements, could you expound on the kinds of third parties that could be affected if remediation agreements were not in place in Canada?

[David Lametti]

Depending on the nature of the company, certainly employees could be. Let's say, in any scenario, the company ceases to exist. Employees lose their job. The funds of pensioners become jeopardized. That's certainly a policy issue that needs to be taken into account. There are the third party suppliers, innocent third party suppliers, who may be selling materials or services to a company. There are subcontractors, depending on the context of the industry.

All of those people are innocent. All of those people did not partake in any kind of criminal behaviour. Oftentimes other people in the company.... Companies can be large entities in which only a very few people are participating in the kinds of criminal activity that would be targeted by a remediation agreement.

It makes sense, as our partners, the U.K. and the United States, have shown us, and it was perceived to be a gap. We had consultations for this particular bill, widespread consultations, including with Transparency International and other organizations, that came in and said that this is the way to go. This provides a very important tool in the tool kit to punish corporate criminality without jeopardizing innocent third parties.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you. You're at six minutes.

Now we're going to a second round of questions.

In the second round of questions, there are six minutes for Liberal, six minutes for Conservative, six minutes for Liberal, five minutes for Conservative and three minutes for NDP.

Mr. Ehsassi.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Briefly, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Fortin?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

You knew that I would have...

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

When we have finished our question period, I will ask the members if they agree. Is that suitable, Mr. Fortin?

Mr. Ehsassi, the floor is yours.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, first I'd like to thank you for coming here. I think it's imperative that there be greater clarity with respect to many of the issues that Canadians are concerned about.

I will start off by asking you about remediation agreements.

You have stated today that when it comes to remediation agreements, there is punishment; there are heavy fines. What would you say to those people who say that remediation agreements do not hold corporations accountable for their wrongdoing?

[David Lametti]

I think that's patently false.

There is a joint admission of guilt in a remediation agreement, a joint statement of facts, in which the guilt is admitted and guilty behaviour is admitted. There is a stay of proceedings, but if the company departs from that, the criminal proceedings can start again.

It is another way of punishing. It is by no means a sweetheart deal or anything like that.

Perhaps the deputy would like to add something if I've missed anything.

[Nathalie Drouin]

No, I think you had it right.

Maybe I will just add that the other goal is really to bring compliance to a specific corporation and to save innocent victims and third parties.

I would also like to say it's not only employees and pensioners but also small shareholders.