Allan Rock

[Justice, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend refers to the appointment of former Chief Justice Dubin, that was done within the last week.

I can tell my hon. friend and the House that the minute the deputy minister told me the meeting had occurred I asked for his assurances that we were going to find out what the facts were, have a complete internal investigation and that was done.

From the moment that it came to the attention of justice officials that Ted Thompson had been to see the chief justice, steps were taken to find out exactly what happened, to get copies of the correspondence and put them in the hands of the lawyers involved in the three cases. The department prepared materials to respond to the motion brought in court to stay the cases. More recently the department arranged for the appointment of former Chief Justice Dubin and his terms of reference.

[Justice, May 30th, 1996]

No, Mr. Speaker. I have already said that we will make public the actions that are taken as a result of the internal inquiry by Mr. Dubin. The former chief justice of Ontario has agreed to meet with justice officials who were involved. Indeed I met with him over the lunch hour to respond to his questions. We have opened up the files. We have invited him to speak to whomever he wishes. I look forward to his report.

I recognize that the Department of Justice above all departments of government should demonstrate a standard of conduct that is entirely above reproach. By asking for this advice from Mr. Dubin we hope to demonstrate that we are committed to doing just that.

[Justice, May 30th, 1996]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can say plainly and unequivocally that I did not know until after the event that Mr. Ted Thompson had visited, communicated with or spoken to the chief justice about these matters.

Within a couple of weeks, and I think it was within a week of the meeting of March 1, I learned from the deputy minister that the associate deputy attorney general had had the communication with Chief Justice Isaac. At that point we ensured that the documents were put into the hands of counsel for the three parties. Indeed, it was at Ted Thompson's order that it was done and then matters went forward from there.

[Justice, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I just came from an appearance before the justice committee of the House on which the hon. member sits. If I can face the justice committee, I can face any tribunal in the land.

The fact is that our focus, my focus as minister, arising from this event has been on the litigation because we have three important revocation cases before the federal court. We do not want to see those cases lost or stayed and we have been arguing that they should not be. That matter I know is before the court. Then I turn to the matter inside the department and the question of how a senior justice official acted. I spoke to that issue yesterday. We have a process in place to deal with that.

When it comes to the chief justice, it seems to me that the matter should be left to the judicial council. I have not felt it necessary or appropriate to require an inquiry. I have already told the House that the judicial conduct committee of the council will be considering the circumstances of this case. I have every confidence it will do so thoroughly and objectively and that any required action will be taken by that council.

[Justice, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in the first instance based on the facts of this case as I know them, I do not believe it is an appropriate circumstance for me to ask for an inquiry under section 63(1) of the Judges Act.

On the other hand, the judicial council has jurisdiction to consider the matter. Anyone is at liberty to file a complaint with the judicial council. What is more to the point, I now understand that the chair of the judicial conduct committee of the judicial council has asked Chief Justice Isaac to explain the circumstances of his communications with Ted Thompson of the Department of Justice. The judicial conduct committee, based on the explanation furnished by Chief Justice Isaac, will decide whether further steps are required.

The public can be satisfied that the judicial council itself has initiated a process in this matter which will result in an adjudication by judges of the appropriateness of the conduct of Chief Justice Isaac.

[Justice, May 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to report to the House on a matter that involves the management of the Department of Justice for which of course I am responsible.

My reference is to the communications that took place recently between Assistant Deputy Attorney General Ted Thompson and Chief Justice Julius Isaac of the Federal Court of Canada.

The communications related to a number of citizenship revocation cases that are pending before the Federal Court. The circumstances in which those communications took place have raised concerns that require an appropriate response.

Canada has one of the finest judicial systems in the world. Its strength is derived in great part from the principle of judicial independence and from the confidence of the public in the integrity of those who administer the system.

Canada's Department of Justice has a special responsibility to ensure that judicial independence and the integrity of the system are maintained. As Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I, in turn, am answerable for the department and for its officers.

I can tell the House that in its dealings with the courts and with other counsel, the Department of Justice takes its responsibility in this regard very seriously. And so do I.

This brings me to the particular matter. I want to note at the outset that as soon as the department became aware that Mr. Thompson and Chief Justice Isaac had met, and as soon as the correspondence between the two came to light, the department provided copies of that correspondence to the lawyers acting for the three persons involved in the revocation cases pending before the Federal Court.

The communications in question are now the subject of litigation before the honourable Mr. Justice Cullen of the Federal Court. The

Court must now decide whether the communications between Chief Justice Isaac and Mr. Thompson justify staying the proceedings in the three revocation cases.

Accordingly, it would not be appropriate for me to argue the details of that issue in the House but hon. members should know that justice counsel are opposing the motion for a stay. Our counsel have formally acknowledged in court that this meeting between Ted Thompson and the chief justice ought not to have taken place without other counsel being present.

Counsel are arguing that staying the proceedings is not the appropriate response. Quite apart from the court proceedings, I have a larger responsibility to ensure that appropriate steps are being taken internally to evaluate the conduct of my own officials in the matter and to respond as required.

In that regard, I want to inform the House of three developments. First, Mr. Ted Thompson has, on his own initiative, written to the Law Society of Upper Canada to inform them of this incident. He has asked the Law Society, which is the governing body for lawyers in this province, to decide whether his actions constitute professional misconduct.

He has agreed to make himself available to the Law Society to answer all questions and to produce any documents that relate to these events. This is the right thing to do. I would have expected no less from Ted Thompson, who is an excellent and an experienced lawyer and has served the Department of Justice long and very well.

Second, the deputy minister of justice has retained the services of the Hon. Charles Dubin, the former chief justice of Ontario who has particular expertise in these matters to review the facts surrounding Ted Thompson's communications with the court and to determine whether his conduct or that of any others in the department departed from the standards expected of a departmental employee.

I believe that within the Department of Justice the principles governing the relationship between the courts and judges on the one hand, and justice officials on the other, are well known and are broadly understood.

Notwithstanding that, we have also asked Mr. Dubin to suggest any steps that he thinks I should take, or that my officials should take, to ensure that in our dealings with the court, the department does nothing to harm the independence of the judiciary, or to reduce the public's confidence in the integrity of the justice system.

Mr. Dubin has been asked to provide his advice as soon as possible. Once Mr. Dubin's advice is in hand, the deputy minister will discharge his responsibility to decide what steps, if any, should be taken as a result of it.

I will advise the House of the deputy minister's actions and the reasons for them at an appropriate time, having regard to the proceedings that are pending.

Third, I should tell the House that Ted Thompson has decided to take leave of his current position as assistant deputy attorney general until Mr. Dubin reports to the deputy minister.

I conclude by emphasizing that I take this matter seriously. Allegations of impropriety against officials of the Department of Justice are quite exceptional. It is precisely because the department has a deserved reputation for understanding and maintaining the principles of judicial independence and impartiality, and for respecting the highest standards in its dealings with other parties in the courts, that I have felt it necessary to address the House today.

I will, of course, keep the House informed as to the ultimate resolution of the matter.

[Justice, May 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I shall do better than that. I shall listen to the justice committee on which the Reform Party is well represented. The hon. member for Crowfoot and his colleagues from that party on that committee are at work on the very issues the hon. member has referred to. When those recommendations are received, we shall pay very close attention to what they recommend.

[Justice, May 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the facts of the sad cases recounted by the hon. member are dreadful. Without commenting on the liability of cases to be before the court, all of us of course share the grief of the families of the victims involved in those cases.

The hon. member also knows that in Bill C-37 we changed the Young Offenders Act to increase substantially the penalties for murder to make it easier to transfer 16 and 17-years-olds to adult court for adult trial in crimes of serious violence.

His party is working actively on the justice committee reviewing the act in its entirety. We have already made it clear we will listen carefully to the recommendations the committee makes later this year and we shall make whatever other changes in the act are required to meet the needs of public safety.

[Justice, May 29th, 1996]

No, Mr. Speaker. Our focus has been on the litigation and now internally with respect to the appropriate response to Ted Thompson's conduct.

The instances to which the hon. member has referred involved either ministers or members of government communicating with judges directly, and that is not what happened in this case.

What happened in this case is an instance of a long serving and excellent lawyer with the department who at the request of the chief justice participated in a meeting which eventually turned to subjects that were more appropriately dealt with on notice to counsel involved in those cases and with their involvement.

We acknowledge that was inappropriate. Our focus has been on resisting motions to stay those cases in the court and now on how to deal with Mr. Ted Thompson internally in the department. That has been the focus of our attention.

[Justice, May 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the meeting was held, according to the chief justice, at the request of the chief justice. The meeting was for the purpose initially of discussing concerns with the pace of litigation generally in the Federal Court.

As I said yesterday, we have also acknowledged that it was inappropriate for the meeting to discuss specific cases without notice being given to counsel in those cases and an opportunity for those counsel to participate.

In specific response to the point raised by the hon. member about the timing, I can tell him that it was Mr. Ted Thompson who brought to the attention of the department the fact that the meeting had taken place. He brought the correspondence to the attention of the department. We then brought that to the attention of counsel in those cases.

In the weeks since March 1 our focus has been on the litigation. Lawyers for the parties involved in the three litigation cases have brought a motion, to which we have responded. We have been in the courtroom resisting their application for stay.

At this point it is appropriate for me to make a statement. I propose to do that. I will address in that statement the response, internally, of the department to these circumstances.