Debates of May 14th, 2019

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

Mr. Chair, as I described in a previous line of questioning, the Department of Justice set up a procedure with the court in order to fulfill its obligations with respect to third party records. That is all the Department of Justice was doing in this case. We identified over 140,000 potentially relevant documents in a variety of different places. That number was boiled down to 8,000 and then ultimately a judge, working through a civil servant and the PCO, was going to determine both the relevance of the documents and whether they would be subject to privilege of any sort, be it solicitor-client, cabinet confidence or other.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, the judge the minister is referring to, Justice Perkins-McVey, is the one I quoted. She had concerns about the independence of the public prosecutor after she had seen notes that were not fully disclosed to the defence and were claimed under litigation privilege because they dealt with trial strategy.

Does the minister, as our chief legal officer, feel it is appropriate for the Prime Minister's legal advisers to be communicating with Crown officials with respect to trial strategy?

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

Mr. Chair, again, I do not accept the premise of the question. I point the hon. member to the statement by the director of public prosecutions herself. On at least two occasions she said there was no political interference in the case, and the prosecutor in the case also said that.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, on the February 11 pretrial date, defence counsel Mainville was raising concerns about the non-disclosure of notes that appear related to trial strategy. This is where the “engineer the issues at stake” led to the exchange.

Would the minister, if he is rejecting the premise of my question when I am quoting a judge, undertake to examine the concerns the judge had with respect to independence in his role as chief legal officer?

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

Mr. Chair, I am obviously not going to comment on trial strategies of whatever party is involved in a trial. It would be absurd for me to do that.

What I will say is that the director of the prosecution service has stated on at least two occasions that there was no political interference, including for the staying of the decision. The prosecutor herself stated that there was no political interference.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, at the outset, the minister said that all lawyers in the government were under his purview. When asked about the first one I mentioned, he clarified that not all of them were.

Could the minister say whether the lawyers under his purview, whether any Department of Justice lawyers, spoke with Paul Shuttle, the PCO legal adviser about the Norman case?

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

Mr. Chair, within the process, documents were turned over to PCO in order to determine whether they were covered by privilege, whether it be solicitor-client or cabinet privilege. This was a normal part of this process. I would point out that the clerk of the Privy Council delegated the ultimate authority to make the decision on whether documents had to be produced or redacted to the judge, which is highly exceptional and, I think, evidence of our good faith in this matter.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, would the minister undertake to examine whether there were communications with any Department of Justice officials and Privy Council advisers to the Prime Minister on trial strategy in the Norman matter?

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

Mr. Chair, once again, I would point out that the director of public prosecutions has said that there has been no political interference in this trial. I am confident in the institutions, like the RCMP and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, and, ultimately, very confident in our trial process.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, does the minister now consider litigation or the court case involving Vice-Admiral Norman to be complete?

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

Mr. Chair, the prosecution has been stayed by the director of public prosecutions. I will say no more than that. The hon. member is an attorney and he knows what that means.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am indeed a lawyer and I know what that means. Since litigation has been completed, will our chief legal officer, today, agree to waive litigation privilege protections of the notes referred to at the February 11 matter involving PCO lawyer Paul Shuttle?

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

Mr. Chair, there is currently another case proceeding through the courts based on the same set of facts, and I will do nothing to interfere with that case.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, if the other litigation concludes, will the minister then agree to waive litigation privilege over those notes?

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

Mr. Chair, the hon. member knows that I will not answer that kind of hypothetical question.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, moving from the sublime to the ridiculous, I would like to remind the minister that he was appointed on January 14, and I congratulate the minister, belatedly. On January 17, former ambassador John McCallum appeared at cabinet. Did the minister speak with John McCallum about the extradition case of Meng Wanzhou?

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

Mr. Chair, that kind of conversation would be covered by cabinet confidence.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will rephrase it. I do not want to know the substance of the conversation. Will the minister acknowledge, yes or no, that a conversation on the Meng Wanzhou extradition took place with Ambassador McCallum?

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

Mr. Chair, again, I am not going to comment on that.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think people viewing would take that as a yes, as I do.

Mr. McCallum, the former ambassador, I would note, is not a lawyer. However, four or five days after meeting with cabinet, he did a press conference, saying Meng Wanzhou had strong legal arguments to fight against her extradition. Did the minister speak about those legal arguments with the ambassador?

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

Mr. Chair, once again, the honest answer is that I actually have no recollection whether I spoke to him or not.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, clearly the Prime Minister asked for the resignation of Ambassador McCallum after he spoke publicly a few days after the cabinet meeting about the substance of the Meng Wanzhou extradition case, which was highly inappropriate.

On February 7, the minister gave an interview to the Toronto Star, where he said that ultimately the extradition was in his hands. He said, “foreign affairs is a political matter".

Is he the final arbiter for the Meng Wanzhou extradition?

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

Mr. Chair, as I said a number of times publicly, there is an extradition process that has been established in Canada in which the process will go through the court system. Ultimately, at the end of all legal proceedings, if there is an extradition order, it is up to the Minister of Justice, in my role as Minister of Justice, to order or not that extradition according to established criteria.

What I was referring to in the Toronto Star interview, and I thank the hon. member for allowing me the time to clarify this, was that as Minister of Justice, and not as Attorney General in this particular role, it is ultimately a recognition that external affairs is of a different order of things. However, there are legal criteria, which I will follow should we get to that point.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, as the final arbiter, as the minister mentioned, after the process has run its course, that he would make a final determination in his role as Minister of Justice.

A few days ago, the minister had dinner at the Orchid Ball in Montreal with the consulate general of China. Did the Meng Wanzhou case come up in his dinner with the ambassador?

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

Mr. Chair, no, it did not. We talked to each other and said that we would not talk about the case.