Public Safety Committee on Aug. 16th, 2022

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

I call the meeting to order.

For those who may not be aware, there was a last-minute change. Our chair was unable to attend this morning, so this morning I was asked to assume the chair role as vice-chair of this committee.

As you are also aware, I am the lead for the Conservative team. I generally lead our questions, so I will be leading with my questions as well, unless there are any issues with that. I would like to say to the committee that I will ensure respect for the time and ensure that our standards are maintained in this committee during my questioning period.

Welcome to meeting number 32 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee is meeting on its study of allegations of political interference in the 2020 Nova Scotia mass murder investigation.

Just as a reminder, all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. When you are not speaking, please ensure that your mike is on mute.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses for the first panel. From the Department of Justice, we have François Daigle, deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general of Canada; and Owen Rees, acting assistant deputy attorney general.

Deputy Minister, I will now open the floor to your comments. Please go ahead.

[François Daigle, Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice]

Thank you.

Thank you for inviting us to appear before the committee today. As introduced, Owen, who's joining me today, is the acting assistant deputy attorney general responsible for the national litigation sector in the department.

Before I begin, I would like to offer my deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of the victims of the shooting in Nova Scotia in April 2020. I want to acknowledge their loss and the impact of those events on the community.

My remarks today will focus exclusively on the process led by the Department of Justice to produce documents to the Mass Casualty Commission. The Department of Justice and its lawyers were not involved or consulted on whether to disclose firearms information at the April 28, 2020, press conference, nor were we involved in the teleconference with the RCMP commissioner that followed that day.

As a result, I really don't have any relevant information to provide on your questions on allegations of political interference in 2020. I will therefore focus my remarks on the role of the Department of Justice before the commission and on the document review and production process, including the disclosure of four pages of officers' notes related to that April 28, 2020, teleconference.

Given that our time is short and that document production processes are complex and detailed, I sent to the committee last Friday a letter providing more information about the document production process and our role before that commission.

Department of Justice lawyers represent the Government of Canada in the inquiry before the commission. One of the primary responsibilities of our lawyers and paralegals is to disclose relevant documents for the purposes of the inquiry, which is standard procedure in investigations of this kind, public inquiries or even civil litigation.

The disclosure of documents in any investigation is a significant task. The government has already disclosed over 75,000 documents to the commission. The magnitude of the work is significant, given the logistical challenges of collecting, reviewing and disclosing each of those documents. This is a technical and complex process that requires a great deal of effort and time. I would like to acknowledge the dedication of the Department of Justice employees who have done this work to date.

In the context of this inquiry, disclosure of documents is an ongoing process. The government began disclosing documents to the commission in February 2021, and as the commission continues its investigation, new issues are raised that result in new document requests. This is customary in this type of investigation.

As a result, our team of lawyers and paralegals receives new requests for documents from the commission on a regular basis, as well as new sets of documents for review from the various government departments and agencies. The departmental team sorts through these requests based on the commission's immediate needs and the priorities of upcoming hearings.

A standard feature of document production in this inquiry and in civil litigation generally is the review of documents for legally privileged information. Privilege can apply to entire documents or to portions of documents, according to common law or statute—for example, the Canada Evidence Act.

I want to be very clear with the committee that this document review and production process to the commission is managed by the lawyers and paralegals in the Department of Justice. The Minister of Justice and the minister's office are not involved in this process.

As part of the document production process in early 2022, we reviewed the handwritten notes of four senior RCMP officers in order to produce them to the commission. There were over 2,400 pages of handwritten notes. As outlined in my letter, our team flagged 35 pages among those 2,400 as containing potentially privileged content. Knowing that there were hearings coming up with these officers, we decided to authorize the disclosure of the 2,400 pages, with the exception of the 35 pages that we were still reviewing for privilege.

Unfortunately, we did not alert the commission to the fact that we had not produced the additional 35 pages because they were being further reviewed. We've exchanged letters and spoken to commission counsel. I think the oversight was acknowledged and understood.

Only four of the 35 pages relate to the April 28 meeting—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

You have 10 seconds, sir.

[François Daigle]

I'll finish in 10 seconds.

Only four of the 35 pages related to the April 28 meeting. These were in the notes of Superintendent Campbell. After our review, all of those documents were produced without redactions. They were produced on May 30 to the commission. The rest of the 35 pages, the 31, were also produced subsequently, some with redactions for irrelevant information.

We continue to work closely with the commission.

With respect to the disclosure process, the government is committed to fully supporting the commission's investigation.

I have full confidence in the dedication and professionalism of our Department of Justice lawyers and paralegals who are representing Canada before this commission.

I'd be happy to take questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you, Deputy Minister.

Do you have any comments to add, Mr. Rees?

[Owen Rees, Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice]

No. Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, we will start our six-minute round of questioning with the Conservatives. I will begin that round of questioning for us, and I will start my six minutes now.

Colleagues, you are welcome to keep me on time as well.

I'd like to thank you both very much for being here today and also thank the deputy minister for being forthcoming with that information in his opening remarks.

You're aware that the Mass Casualty Commission has a public interest mandate to investigate the worst mass murder in Canadian history to get answers for the public. Is that correct?

[François Daigle]

Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

The Department of Justice also has the obligation to assist the commission in achieving its mandate to serve the public interest. Is that correct?

[François Daigle]

Agreed.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

You're aware that Chief Superintendent Chris Leather recently testified at the commission inquiry that he received legal counsel from the Department of Justice, your department, to withhold evidence from the commission unless specifically asked. That is, your department, the lawyers in your department, the counsel, told him to provide evidence reactively and not proactively. Is that correct?

[François Daigle]

That is correct, but only with respect to what I guess is referred to now as this wellness report. I have three reasons, really, to explain why I think Chief Superintendent Leather misunderstood the advice he received.

First, our counsel met with Chief Superintendent Leather on July 5. It was during that meeting that we learned of the existence of this wellness report for the first time. From what I understand, it was a report that was commissioned a year after the events. What we counselled Chief Superintendent Leather to do was...because we hadn't seen the report yet. We didn't know the extent to which it was relevant—if all of it was relevant or if portions of it were relevant. It was obviously prepared for a different purpose.

So our advice to him was this: Don't raise it proactively, but if it comes up, answer the questions. That was the advice we gave to him. We gave no advice with respect to not being proactive with respect to two other pieces of information—one was about the April 28 meeting—because that information was already before the commission. As with all witnesses, we told him to be very forthcoming.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you, sir.

Just to be clear, we've been hearing a lot about these misunderstandings, as I'm sure you are aware, during this investigation. You're saying that Superintendent Leather misunderstood but that in fact your department did advise him to be reactive and not proactive, but it was specifically in terms of this wellness study that was being undertaken for Nova Scotia RCMP. I believe he was under the impression that the reactive approach was to be taken at large whenever he was asked questions by the commission or otherwise. It's odd how that misunderstanding is quite significant, I would say, and he shared that at the commission.

Are you aware, then, that the Honourable Thomas Cromwell, counsel director of the commission, wrote to department lawyer Lori Ward?

Can we ensure we're all muted? Thank you very much.

Are you aware of this letter, sent to the Department of Justice on August 6 from the Honourable Thomas Cromwell, commission counsel director? He was not familiar that this was a misunderstanding. He is under the impression that your department in fact asked Mr. Leather to be reactive in his testimony. Are you aware of the letter I'm referring to?

[François Daigle]

I'm aware of it. The letter says that he is concerned to have heard of Chief Superintendent Leather's testimony and is asking us to confirm whether that's correct or not correct. We have responded to that letter. Lori Ward did respond to the letter on August 9 to explain what I just explained to you a minute ago.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Have you advised anybody else to be reactive in their approach to the wellness report, or the commission generally, anyone involved in this case, in the RCMP or otherwise?

[François Daigle]

No, this was a comment made to Superintendent Leather because it came up when our counsel was preparing him for an interview with the commission counsel the very next day. He brought it up at the prep and we had never seen this report. It was reasonable for us to say, “We'd like to see it and give you some advice before you raise it. But if questions come up, you have to answer the questions.”

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you, Deputy Minister.

To be clear, you have not advised anyone to be only reactive and not proactive.

[François Daigle]

No, and with every witness before the inquiry we have counselled them to be truthful and to assist the commission as much as possible.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

At any time since the 2020 Nova Scotia mass murder, was the department concerned about political interference from government? At any time, did you advise anyone about political interference?

[François Daigle]

No. As I said in my opening remarks, we were not involved, or nobody sought legal advice on the April 28 meeting with respect to the disclosure of firearms information.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you.

You have not provided any legal advice to the Prime Minister's Office, the Minister of Public Safety's office, or any other ministerial office concerning the mass casualties.

[François Daigle]

We've provided lots of advice to the government, but I think the allegations are with respect to the firearms information at the April 28 press conference and the subsequent meeting with the commissioner. We have not provided any advice with respect to those.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Justice Canada's spokesperson Ian McLeod said that the final four pages of Chief Superintendent Campbell's notes were withheld until the end of May of this year because they required further assessment of whether they were privileged. We're very aware of this. What aspect of their content merited that further assessment, which took that additional three months to release Mr. Campbell's notes? Again, you will remember it's those four key pages that have really initiated this entire investigation.

[François Daigle]

As I said earlier, those four pages were caught up in another group of 35. There were 35 pages altogether that we had flagged. We flag things for further review. Some things are legal advice. That's easy to spot. Some things may be cabinet confidence. Some may be public interest privilege. Depending on the nature of the privilege, our counsel will have to consult other people. It takes time to review them, especially since they are handwritten and sometimes we have to go back to our clients to understand the context within which those comments were made. The privilege review does take some time.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you. Our time is up.

We're going to go to the Liberal Party, with MP Noormohamed for six minutes.