Evidence of meeting #138 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 decision.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
My intention at the end of the second round is to ask people whether they wish to continue.
We're at one hour and six minutes. I think we'll be able to fit in a third round before the meeting ends, which is at four o'clock.
We'll move to the Liberals now.
Mr. Fraser.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you both for being here today.
Madame Drouin, I'd like to just go back to your opening comments with regard to what you said about September 12. I understand that you had a conversation with the Department of Finance on September 12 to the effect that SNC-Lavalin was still in discussions with the DPP and you said, “I therefore understood that the DPP's position on whether to invite SNC to negotiate a remediation agreement was not [yet] final.”
Did you have any reason to believe by September 17 that those discussions had concluded?
3:05 p.m.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
I don't have that information.
3:05 p.m.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
The only thing I can offer to this committee, as I said also in my opening remarks, is that I don't know how and when the DPP informed SNC-Lavalin about the final decision. The only thing I have is the public record, when SNC publicly announced—I think it was on October 10 or 12—that the remediation agreement had been turned down on them.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
But by September 17, it's possible that the discussions were continuing with the DPP and the Department of Finance.
3:05 p.m.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
I don't want to consider any hypotheses. I don't have the information to confirm or deny what you're saying.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Okay, fair enough.
I understand that you basically are alluding to the fact that the former attorney general was not keen on intervening or looking at this further, as early as two days after receiving the section 13 notice, as I understand the sequence of events. I guess that would be as early as September 11. She had expressed that she was not interested, perhaps, or not keen on exploring that possibility while discussions were still ongoing between the Department of Finance and the DPP.
Is that accurate?
3:05 p.m.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
First, there are several elements in your question.
On September 11, I received an email from the acting chief of staff saying that the minister was not.... The email was in French. Let me read it, please.
The Attorney General had no intention of intervening in the case, but she was prepared to discuss it with me.
To your question, maybe I misunderstood, but I don't think that Finance has ever had any conversations with the DPP. Maybe I misunderstood your question, but the DPP and Finance have never discussed together.... Maybe SNC had discussions with Finance, but not....
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
According to the Department of Finance, the discussions between SNC-Lavalin and the DPP were continuing as of September 12.
3:05 p.m.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
This is the information I—
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
As for that email you received on September 11, was that the take of the Attorney General at the time? She was not keen on looking further at that matter. Is that accurate?
3:05 p.m.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
That's my understanding, yes.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
I'd like to ask a question in French.
Were you aware of the former Attorney General's concerns about a deferred prosecution agreement from a public interest standpoint?
3:10 p.m.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
I don't know that it was a matter of concern.
Remediation agreements are interesting tools. I've enforced financial crimes laws for a long time, and I know it's an interesting tool. That doesn't mean it can be used in all situations. However, it can be used to make businesses responsible and accountable for their actions and to allow them to repair the harm they have caused to their victims while avoiding making innocent victims of other people, such as employees, retirees and shareholders—and here I'm mainly talking about small shareholders.
That being said, this tool is available. I think it's an asset for Canada to have an additional tool in its Criminal Code. Now, in every case, it's up to the director of public prosecutions to determine whether it's a good tool to use, having regard to several factors, such as the seriousness of the crime, the persons involved in the crime and the other investigations that an entity might face. There are several factors that the DPP must take into account.
In short, I would say it's a good tool, but it's the director of public prosecutions who must determine whether it can be used in a particular situation.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
The former attorney general mentioned that by September 17 she had made up her mind and that, she said, “for those who know me, I was not going to change my mind.” Do you have any view or comment with regard to a usual practice of an Attorney General not considering new information coming forward?
3:10 p.m.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
I think what I would like to say is that when the DPP Act was developed, it was clear for everyone that the authorities under the act should be used on an exceptional basis, not to put in danger the independence of any prosecutors. I think this is why we don't have any precedents at the federal level or in Quebec, where we do have a similar regime. That does not mean that it should never be used, but it should be used with a lot of care.
March 6th, 2019 / 3:10 p.m.
Pierre Poilievre Carleton, CPC
Mr. Wernick, on September 17, 2018, in your presence, the Prime Minister told the Attorney General that if there were no deferred prosecution agreement, SNC would move from Montreal. Did the Prime Minister know at the time that a financing agreement with the Caisse de dépôt made it impossible for SNC to move its headquarters before the year 2024—yes or no?
3:10 p.m.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
That is not my recollection of what the Prime Minister said.
3:10 p.m.
Carleton, CPC
So he did not say that SNC would move from Montreal if it did not get a deferred prosecution agreement?
3:10 p.m.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
That's not my recollection of what he said.
3:10 p.m.
Carleton, CPC
All right. Let's turn to what you said. Hopefully your memory is a little better on that.
At the same meeting, you told the Attorney General that there would be a board meeting of SCN-Lavalin within three days and they would likely be moving to London. Who told you that SNC would likely announce a move of its headquarters to London at its September 20, 2018, board meeting?
3:10 p.m.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
That is not my recollection of what I said.