House of Commons Hansard #416 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was chair.
The Deputy Chair NDP Carol Hughes
Let me remind members that the time for the questions being asked and the time for the questions being answered has to be around the same amount of time.
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleagues across the aisle for showing such great interest in the work we are doing. It would be nice to see some additional support.
On the work of reconciliation when it comes to the advancement of the legislative initiatives I have referred to, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary might shed some light on the importance, the significance and indeed the historical value of the litigation directive that was recently introduced as it relates to litigation with regard to indigenous peoples.
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Madam Chair, that directive actually informs the entire basis of our approach to reconciliation. It guides the Government of Canada's legal approaches, position and decisions taken in indigenous litigation involving aboriginal and treaty rights protected under section 35 of the Constitution. It creates a new method of approaching litigation.
It is an important directive, which actually enshrines the new approach we are trying to take, which is about working together with indigenous people to address reconciliation, including through litigation.
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Madam Chair, in the course of my remarks, I also made mention of Bill C-75, which is an important piece of legislation that would help reduce court delays by modifying several aspects of court processes and trial processes.
I wonder if the parliamentary secretary might highlight some of the ways in which we would significantly reduce delays through the enshrinement of Bill C-75.
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Madam Chair, the important aspect of Bill C-75 is that it would address delays by not clogging up the system with the administration of justice offences the member for Eglinton—Lawrence mentioned and by invoking the principle of restraint.
This would ensure that we do not overrepresent indigenous people in the criminal justice system and thereby cause increasing delays by clogging it further.
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Madam Chair, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary might expand on how addressing both administration of justice offences and the principle of restraint, which is so important when it comes to that first stage of the criminal justice process, when accused offenders are making their first appearance before the court, would actually start to help address the overrepresentation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system, which for far too long has been left unaddressed.
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Madam Chair, that is an important point. We know that racialized people, particularly indigenous people in this country, are, in fact, overrepresented in our justice system, including being over-incarcerated.
The principle of restraint is that where there are no concerns about the accused coming to court or posing a risk to public safety, police officers and justices are motivated to release the detained accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity. Entrenching that in law would provide strong parameters to guide the exercise of discretion by the judge in giving bail.
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Madam Chair, I would ask the parliamentary secretary to talk about how we have restored important and essential resources to the criminal justice system to ensure that there is access to justice and that we are effecting meaningful reconciliation with indigenous people.
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Madam Chair, we have to complement sound policy with sound resources. We are doing both. We are addressing this concern from a macro perspective by providing the resources necessary to address the important delays that were highlighted in the speech by my colleague.
Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2019-20Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Madam Chair, one year ago, the justice committee reached a unanimous committee report relating to juror supports. I have introduced a private member's bill that is now in the other place arising from one of the key recommendations from that report. Why has the government today, to my knowledge, not pursued implementation of the other key recommendations in that report?
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Madam Chair, I thank the hon. member for his work on the justice committee and, indeed, for Bill C-417, which our government supported. It is one of the first things I did when I became the newly appointed minister of justice to make sure that we supported that bill, with the support of the chair of the justice committee as well.
We understand the importance of that bill and how effecting juror support is critically important. I have met with one of the leading advocates to discuss ideas on how to move forward to better support jurors. I hope the hon. member will support us on that.
Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2019-20Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Madam Chair, I will now move to the issue of SNC-Lavalin, following up a question posed by the member for Essex. In light of the fact that the justice committee's efforts to get to the bottom of what happened in the SNC matter were shut down, why is the minister opposed to calling a public inquiry?
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Madam Chair, it is my understanding that the majority of members on the justice committee felt they had heard enough. There were competing narratives and competing interpretations of the Shawcross principle.
I know that the Ethics Commissioner is enquiring into the matter. We have every confidence that the Ethics Commissioner has a number of very important powers for investigating the matter and look forward to that report by an independent officer of Parliament.
Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2019-20Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Madam Chair, it is pretty clear that the justice committee shut down its investigation when it took orders directly from the Prime Minister's Office, but that aside, the minister relies on the Ethics Commissioner to undertake an investigation. However, the minister knows that under section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act, the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commissioner on this matter is very limited. Issues around obstruction of justice and political interference would not fall within the scope of the Ethics Commissioner.
Again, why will the minister not call a public inquiry?
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Madam Chair, while what the hon. member said is true to an extent, the Ethics Commissioner does have significant powers to shed light on this matter. We had testimony before the justice committee that gave competing versions of events. As I said earlier this evening, it is quite possible that all of the deeply beliefs in those competing narratives are true in some way. I would add that at the end of the day, my predecessor stated quite clearly that she did not think anybody broke the law.
Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2019-20Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Madam Chair, the Prime Minister and other members of the government repeatedly asserted that their interference in the SNC-Lavalin affair was somehow justified on the basis of the jobs issue. The minister has stated that he has not advanced that argument, that he has not made a public statement in that regard, but I am going to ask him if he believes that the loss of jobs constitutes a lawful basis to interfere in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin?
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Madam Chair, the hon. member is a lawyer who will understand that when I say, as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, that I will not make any pronouncement about my own interpretation in that regard, it is simply because there is ongoing litigation. There is an appeal process before the Federal Court. Anything that I say might be interpreted as having an impact on those proceedings and it has been my practice not to comment on that.
Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2019-20Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Madam Chair, Michael Wernick, the former clerk of the Privy Council, characterized his involvement as “lawful advocacy”. Would the minister agree?
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Madam Chair, I do not give advice to Parliament as such. I will note that there were different interpretations of the Shawcross principle that were given at committee, and he can read those opinions and form an opinion on his own.
Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2019-20Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Madam Chair, the former attorney general was repeatedly pressured by officials in the PMO to seek an outside legal opinion with respect to whether to overturn the decision of the director of public prosecutions. Has the minister sought an outside opinion?
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Madam Chair, as I said in answer to an earlier question, I will not comment on the nature of the process with respect to SNC-Lavalin and DPAs because there is an ongoing appellate procedure, and anything I can say or do might be interpreted as having taken a stance in that matter.
Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2019-20Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Madam Chair, it is very clear. We know that repeated pressure was put on the former attorney general to seek an outside opinion. One must ask what the basis of such opinion could be, other than to change the former attorney general's mind, especially having regard for paragraph 715.32(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, which specifically provides that it is the prosecutor—in other words, the director of public prosecutions—who must decide whether they are of the opinion that negotiating the agreement is in the public interest and is appropriate in the circumstances. Therefore, it falls on the DPP and not the attorney general to form an opinion, so what could possibly have been the basis of seeking an outside legal opinion?
Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2019-20Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Madam Chair, again, I will not elaborate on either the powers in this particular instance of the DPP or the powers in this particular instance of the attorney general, as elaborated in the law, simply because anything I can say might be interpreted and used in the course of the appellate proceedings.
Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2019-20Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Madam Chair, retired judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond said that she believes what happened in the SNC-Lavalin scandal constitutes “a constitutional crisis”. Would the minister agree?
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Madam Chair, again, I will not agree or disagree in this kind of proceeding, because anything that I can say might be used in the course of litigation.
I will remind the hon. member that there were various interpretations of the Shawcross principle, and that was one of them.