Debates of May 14th, 2019

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2019-20

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am asking the minister whether he or a member of his staff or any members of the Prime Minister's Office, now or in the future, have ever told anybody who works with or for SNC-Lavalin that it will get a deferred prosecution agreement eventually, more specifically, before the election?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, it is absurd to project into the future what people might or might not say. I can speak for myself and say that I have never had such conversations or given such an assurance.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Chair, moving on to issues from this afternoon, in question period today the Prime Minister indicated, “We continue to respect the independence of the judiciary. We always will. Measures were brought forward against the vice-admiral at the direction of the chief of the defence staff.”

Could the minister let us know whether the chief of the defence staff ordered the RCMP to lay charges?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, I do not know the answer to that question. I do know that the RCMP conducts its own independent investigations and that the director of public prosecutions undertakes those prosecutions and, in this case, ordered the stay. It was before my time as Attorney General. I do not know the precise instigation for that.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Chair, further to questions regarding the RCMP, today two members of the RCMP indicated that they would “like to get the totality of the information and do a proper analysis.” In other words, they are asking for certain information to be passed to them from the federal prosecution service.

Will the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada discuss this matter with the federal prosecution service?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, the prosecution service is independent of my office, and I will not speculate on an article that appears in the newspaper.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is more than an article that appears in the newspaper. This is a quote from the RCMP and in it the RCMP is indicating that it wishes to go back and take a look at the information that was levelled with respect to the charges against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

As a result, I am wondering if the minister can let us know whether he still believes this case is closed, given that the RCMP wants to go back and investigate further.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, the RCMP does not take instructions on whether to lay a charge or not. It works entirely independently of my office.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to know from the minister whether he received a section 13 notice prior to the director of public prosecutions and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada staying the charges against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, that would be privileged information. It would be solicitor-client privilege. That is the way we have normally treated section 13 notices. What I can say for the hon. member, as I have stated in the House, and I know she was listening attentively, is that this case was prosecuted under the Criminal Code and the attorney general who was responsible for the prosecution was actually the attorney general for Ontario.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the clarification. I am wondering, though, if the minister can illuminate us. Is he saying that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada was not provided a section 13 notice pursuant to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act on the staying of the charges against Mark Norman?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, under section 13 of the act, the director of public prosecutions can, in this case and at her discretion, issue such a notice to the Attorney General of Canada when a case is in the national interest.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

That is actually not the quote, Mr. Chair. What the act actually says is that it is when the case will attract great public interest. I can think of no case that has attracted more public interest, other than SNC-Lavalin, than the case of Mark Norman.

Once again, could the minister tell me whether the director of public prosecutions provided a section 13 notice. I might as well go further to tell him what I am driving at. I would like to know whether cabinet discussed the section 13 notice under the umbrella of the Attorney General of Canada seeking advice from his colleagues.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, what I have been trying to say for the hon. member is that the act does not apply in this case.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Chair, at the end of a press conference with respect to the staying of charges with respect to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, counsel actually said the following, which I would like to read if I may:

There are lots of questions that need to be asked and answered about this whole process the last couple of years. And I think some people who have been involved in this need to reflect on what happened and why it happened and their role in it.

Would the minister agree that it is appropriate for him to order a commission of inquiry within his department pursuant to the Inquiries Act?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have received a breakdown of how the justice department dealt with the third party orders for documents. I am satisfied, and the court appeared to be satisfied, that we met our obligations in that regard.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am going to argue with the minister on that point. I do not believe the court indicated it was satisfied. In fact, as the minister should know, the actual application was never determined. In fact, the staying of the charge came prior to the judge weighing in on it, but there is much obiter from the judge on her concerns about the documents and how slowly they were coming forward, if they were coming forward at all.

The minister indicated today that the department had turned over all documents that were needed. Will the minister say that once again in the House of Commons now?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, the process that was set up was set up precisely so that defence counsel could inquire and get documents from the government.

The process that was set up allowed for the department of justice to receive applications for potentially responsive records. These are all kinds of records. Over 144,000 such records were identified, and eventually 8,000 documents were deemed to be potentially possible. It was ultimately the court that made that decision.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Chair, not quite. On February 22, the defence was in possession of zero documents. Would the minister agree with me on that?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, this was an extraordinarily complex case with many documents. From beginning to end, over six months, my understanding is that only 246 potentially responsive documents had yet to be reviewed when the stay happened, which meant that we complied with virtually all of the document requests.

This is a far better time frame than in many other complex cases of a similar nature.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Chair, is the minister aware that the application for the production of these documents commenced on October 12, 2018?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, ultimately it is a judge who would order both the final manner in which the documents were redacted and the production of documents themselves. Ultimately these were decisions that were going to be made by the judge.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Chair, would the minister agree with me that the Crown has a duty of disclosure specifically when it comes to making sure that the defence has everything it needs in order to exculpate itself if it does have the documents in its possession? Does he not agree that this is exactly what the duty of the Crown is in this matter?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, this was an extraordinarily complex case in which documents needed to be identified, and in which potential privilege could be claimed for solicitor-client privilege and for litigation privilege, as well as cabinet confidence.

Those decisions are, in the normal course of events, made by a judge. We set up a process that would allow that to happen, and I am confident that we met our obligations to the defence in this case.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have to go back to what the former defence attorney for Vice-Admiral Norman indicated:

No person in this country should ever walk into a courtroom and feel like they are fighting their elected government or any sort of political factors at all.

She also said:

It took months and months and months. It took six months to get documents, and as we sit here today and as we walked out of that courtroom, we still did not have all of them....

She added:

The facts are that we were required to bring an application in court that has dragged on for six months to get documents.

How can the minister indicate that he is satisfied with the work of the department in this matter?