Evidence of meeting #135 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was general.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It would be historic. What you were being asked for is not only extraordinary in this case, you were being asked to do something unprecedented. Is that fair?
Liberal
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
A specific case, you say.
I'm a bit confused by this line of logic that I've heard my Liberal colleagues recently use. They're essentially questioning your integrity for not quitting. I thought your integrity was enhanced by not quitting, by staying there and, as you've just said, maintaining the rule of law. What I am finding confusing about this is the idea that you should have quit when you were being pressured, inappropriately and consistently, by some of the most powerful people in this country. You resisted that pressure, you said. You were not going to give this plea deal, this special offer, and you stayed in the job. People are questioning your integrity for having taken that course of action. Do you understand my confusion and why Canadians might be confused?
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I can say this: I have always acted with integrity, with purpose and with principle. I was doing that in my role as the Attorney General when it came to SNC and the potential for a deferred prosecution agreement. I suspect that this committee will have discussions about the testimony and differences of opinion, but I also believe in Canadians and their ability to hear the words I've spoken, to hear the facts I've expressed and to make their own determinations.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I think many of us are making our own determinations, based on what we're hearing today.
The ability to seek one of these special...I'm calling them plea deals. I'm not a lawyer. These deferrals can't be made for political reasons. Is that correct?
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It's illegal for you to have made the decision based on political motivations. Is that correct?
Liberal
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It would have been unlawful for you. Is it unlawful for someone to ask you to do that?
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Pressure you. A line is being contemplated.
When this story first broke, the Prime Minister said everything was false. Then no pressure was put. Some pressure was put. Don't worry, the Clerk said. It was appropriate pressure.
All pressure to do something that we've heard from your testimony today had political motivations, which would have been against the law for you to do as the Attorney General.
Have I said anything wrong to this point?
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay. Good.
Is it illegal for someone to pressure the Attorney General to offer a special plea like this for political reasons? Is it illegal for someone to pressure the Attorney General to intervene on a case?
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
In my opinion, it's not illegal. It is very inappropriate, depending on the context of the comments made, the nature of the pressure, the specific issues that are raised.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
It's incredibly inappropriate and is an attempt to compromise or to impose upon an independent Attorney General.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So pressure was put; you talked about veiled threats. You repeatedly asked those threats, those communications with you and your office, to stop.
Is that correct?
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
And it continued. You said you were not doing this. You'd already made up your mind. You have sound legal reasons; you're upholding the rule of law. The pressure continued, the veiled threats continued, all through December.
Is that correct?
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
It continued. I wouldn't say the veiled threats continued throughout the time frame. An escalation in the pressure or the attempts at political interference culminated in the meeting on December 19.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Up until that meeting on December 19, starting way back in September, you had given notice, you had made your decision, the train had left the station, you were not going to interfere with the public prosecutor, the independence of the prosecution to do their job and uphold the rule of law.
You asked it to stop. In fact, the pressure escalates.
Is that right?
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So the independence of the Attorney General's office.... I'm just reflecting on the Prime Minister's argument about the importance of the rule of law in Canada when dealing with Huawei. The argument consistently made by this Prime Minister was he had no choice because he so believed in the rule of law. At the same time he and his staff, his key adviser, the Clerk of the Privy Council, and others on his staff from the finance minister on down are not respecting the rule of law and your independence as the Attorney General of Canada.
I find the contradiction and the hypocrisy of this situation breathtaking, and I've seen a bit from Liberal governments.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You had an opportunity to speak to the abilities and the discretion of prosecutors. I want to ask you about the obligations of prosecutors.
You're fully aware of the handbook for prosecutors, and your duties and expectations that you are passing on to prosecutors. In a relevant part of that handbook, it says Crown counsel must continually assess at each stage of the process whether the prosecution is in the public interest.
So if they have an obligation to continually reassess, would you mind explaining to us why it's your opinion that when you made your decision on September 16, it wasn't your obligation also to continually reassess the facts.
