Justice Committee on Feb. 21st, 2019

[David Lametti]

I already answered that question and the answer is no.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

You never had any discussions on that topic before, is that correct?

[David Lametti]

Yes.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Fine. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

There is one minute and 30 seconds left.

[Michael Barrett, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC]

Ms. Drouin, when did the director of public prosecutions inform the Privy Council Office, the PMO and the Minister of Justice about the outcome of the deferred prosecution agreement? When did the Prime Minister know?

[Nathalie Drouin]

First, there is no direct communication, in any specific case, between the PMO and the DPP. The obligation of the DPP to report on specific cases and to provide information to the Attorney General is to provide information to the Attorney General as the Attorney General and not the Minister of Justice. The DPP does that on a regular basis on high-profile cases.

[Michael Barrett]

Okay.

Mr. Attorney General, both you and the Prime Minister have said that you're preparing a legal opinion on solicitor-client privilege in relation to the former attorney general, Ms. Wilson-Raybould. Lawyers I've consulted with say that solicitor-client privilege is far more limited than your government appears to understand: It applies only to communication between a lawyer and client for the purpose of giving or obtaining legal advice, not every single utterance.

You have the benefit of more than 5,000 employees at the Department of Justice and they're at your disposal. It's our understanding that the former attorney general, Ms. Wilson-Raybould, will appear here on Tuesday. Will your legal opinion be prepared in advance of that meeting?

[David Lametti]

As the former attorney general has stated, the question of solicitor-client privilege is complex and layered.

[Michael Barrett]

Will it be ready for Tuesday?

[David Lametti]

There is substantial debate on the extent.

[Michael Barrett]

Minister, is that a no?

[David Lametti]

It is a continuum, and I can't answer the question because the answer to the question is covered by solicitor-client privilege.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you.

We're now going to Mr. Rankin for three minutes.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I want to start by saying that I know you, sir, to be a highly competent and ethical lawyer whom I hold in very high regard.

In response to my colleague Ms. Raitt, you said you won't make any assumptions about a particular matter. Yet on February 10, to CTV, you said, “The prime minister has said that these allegations are false. We haven't had any corroborating evidence there. There hasn't been anything to my mind that justifies a committee investigation. ”

You, sir, are the arbiter of justice in this country. It seems to a reasonable person that you had already made up your mind that there's nothing here, drive on. In having taken the word of the Prime Minister that there was no wrongdoing, how can you now discharge your responsibilities in this matter as an independent arbiter of justice having, it would appear to Canadians, made up your mind? Is that a reasonable inference?

[David Lametti]

I disagree with the inference. I disagree with the premise of your question.

First of all, unlike in other jurisdictions, the Attorney General does not have an investigative role. We delegate that to other kinds of institutions.

Second, at the time that interview was taped, February 8—it aired February 10—all we had were anonymous allegations in The Globe and Mail and an unequivocal denial by the Prime Minister. At that point, on February 8, I stand by what I say.

I also said in an earlier interview that day with The House, which was taped prior to the CTV interview but was played before...I also stated in good faith that this committee was the master of its own docket, and that I would appear if it called me to appear—

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Right. Okay.

[David Lametti]

—and, Mr. Rankin, I am here.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I hear you, sir, but whether you're answering is another question.

I want to put these facts to you. On September 4, the DPP, director of public prosecutions, tells SNC-Lavalin it's a done deal, that we're going to go forward with criminal prosecution. On September 17 the Prime Minister meets with Jody Wilson-Raybould; on September 5, Gerry Butts meets with Jody Wilson-Raybould at the Chateau Laurier, in each case about SNC-Lavalin.

If that final decision of the DPP was made on September 4, after the final decision, what properly could have been discussed with the Prime Minister or with Gerry Butts in these circumstances? How can we not reasonably infer that there was an attempt to politically interfere with her role as the independent Attorney General?

[David Lametti]

I can't confirm that any of those meetings took—

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

They're all on the public record.

[David Lametti]

I can't confirm that any of those meetings took place, let alone speculate about what the content of those meetings might have been.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

All right. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, that concludes the second round of questions, but we have a request from Mr. Fortin.

The Bloc Québécois is not a recognized party, so the Bloc Québécois does not normally have the right to ask questions at committee. However, Monsieur Fortin has asked, on an exceptional basis, to be allowed that for this meeting. I don't want to create a precedent, but for the purpose of this meeting, I'd be willing to accord him three minutes. Do colleagues agree?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.