Juno News - March 29, 2019


FULL AUDIOļ¼š Jody Wilson-Raybould and Michael Wernick on SNC-Lavalin


Episode Stats


Length

17 minutes

Words per minute

155.21385

Word count

2,712

Sentence count

201

Harmful content

Hate speech

1

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

The PM wants to know why the DPA is not being used in the case of SNC-Lloyd's of Oshawa, and why it should be used. Jody calls the DPP to ask for advice.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.000 Hello. Hello Michael it's Jody. Hi sorry about the phone tag. That's okay. I'm not calling
00:00:15.720 you about the litigation directive. I'm calling about the other unpleasant one. The deferred
00:00:25.680 prosecution agreement thing and SNC and so on. I wanted to pass on where the PM's at.
00:00:35.180 So our intelligence from various sources is that the company is getting to a very serious
00:00:43.920 point now. The board has asked consulting firms for options for the board for their next meeting
00:00:52.360 which could be selling out to somebody else, moving, you know, various things. So and
00:00:59.600 it seems to be seems to be real and not a bluff. So there's a lot of things like another rising
00:01:07.360 anxiety as you can imagine about signature firm and job loss and all that coming after
00:01:13.360 the Oshawa thing and what's going on in Calgary and what not. So the PM wants to be able to
00:01:21.360 say, um, uh, that he has tried everything he can, uh, you know, within, within a legitimate
00:01:28.360 toolbox to try to hit that off. Um, so he's, he's quite determined, quite firm, uh, but he
00:01:37.360 wants to, he wants to know why the DPA route which Parliament provided for isn't, isn't being
00:01:44.360 used. And I think he's going to find a way to get it done one way or another. So, um,
00:01:51.360 he's in that kind of mood and, um, I wanted to be aware of that.
00:01:57.360 Okay.
00:01:58.360 So, um, he's, I don't know if he's going to call you directly. He might. Um, and he's
00:02:07.360 willing, I think he's thinking about getting, um, somebody else to give him some advice.
00:02:12.360 He doesn't, you know, he doesn't want to do anything that's outside the box of what's
00:02:15.360 legal or proper. Um, but his understanding is, you know, the DPA tool is there. Uh, and
00:02:22.360 you have options that we've talked about before to ask for reasoning from the DPP, uh, or even
00:02:30.360 to take over the prosecution. He just wants to understand more at this point why the DPA
00:02:36.360 route isn't being, um, taken up in this route. So he's thinking about bringing in somebody like
00:02:42.360 Bev McLaughlin to give him advice on this, um, or to give you advice to make, you know,
00:02:49.360 if you want to feel more comfortable that you're not doing anything that's inappropriate or outside
00:02:54.360 the frame of it.
00:02:55.360 I'm 100% competent. I'm doing nothing inappropriate.
00:02:59.360 Yeah. No, but would not be, um, if you decided to use some of these tools under the law.
00:03:06.360 Um, cause I think he feels the government has to have done everything it can before the
00:03:11.360 thing it can before we lose 9,000 jobs in a signature Canadian firm.
00:03:18.360 Right. So, um, I'm, again, I'm, I'm confident in where I've, I'm at and my views on SNC and
00:03:29.360 the, the DPA haven't changed. This is, um, a constitutional principle of prosecutorial independence that Michael,
00:03:38.360 Michael, I have to say, including this conversation, previous conversations that I've had with the
00:03:44.360 prime minister and many other people around it, it's entirely inappropriate and it is political
00:03:50.360 interference. And I, the prime minister obviously can talk to whomever he wants, but what I am trying
00:03:57.360 to do is to protect him. I can have a conversation with Beverly McLaughlin.
00:04:02.360 I can call her right now. Um, I'm just, um, issuing the strongest warning.
00:04:09.360 I can possibly issue that decisions that are made by the independent prosecutor are their decisions.
00:04:16.360 We gave, we gave her and them the tools, the additional tools. I made it very clear at the
00:04:24.360 cabinet table and in other places that these tools are the discretion of the prosecutor and
00:04:29.360 everybody agreed to that. And there was no guarantee that there would be a DPA in this
00:04:33.360 or any other case. So we were treading on dangerous ground here. So I'm going to issue my stern warning.
00:04:39.360 Um, because I can't act in a manner and the prosecution can't act in a manner that is, um, not objective,
00:04:49.360 that isn't independent. I can't act in a partisan way and it can't be politically motivated.
00:04:55.360 All of this screams of that. So I'm actually uncomfortable having this conversation, but I'm happy to talk to you.
00:05:02.360 I, I can, I'll call Beverly McLaughlin. I can't even imagine her feeling in any way, shape or form
00:05:10.360 comfortable with interfering with the independent prosecutor.
00:05:14.360 Okay. But I mean, I think that's where people are talking past each other.
00:05:18.360 I mean, I think the, the, the view that he's formed, which, which I think I share, I'm not the lawyer in any
00:05:25.360 of these conversations and elder and others is, um, it's not interference. The statute specifically
00:05:32.360 has these other provisions in it that allow you to ask questions of the DPP.
00:05:38.360 That's, and that's provided for, it's not interference.
00:05:41.360 But I, but I would, but I would have to issue a directive. I would have to gazette this.
00:05:47.360 The prosecutor, the director whom I know and understand after having several conversations
00:05:54.360 with her about another directive on HIV that I issued, she is a by the book person.
00:05:59.360 If this is gazetted, this will be, and this is not, and I, I hear you on the jobs and wanting
00:06:05.360 to save jobs. I mean, we all want to do that. This is goes far beyond saving jobs. This is about
00:06:10.360 the integrity of the prime minister and interference. There's no way that anybody would interpret this
00:06:16.360 other than interference. If I was to step in, it doesn't matter how I would look in doing that.
00:06:22.360 I mean, I'd be a mockery and that's not the problem. The bigger problem is what it would look like down
00:06:28.360 the road for the government is not about jobs. And I know the jobs are important. So I don't want anybody
00:06:33.360 to misinterpret that. I don't care about those jobs. This is about the integrity of the government
00:06:39.360 and recognizing that there is the ability to issue a directive under the act. It is still irrespective
00:06:49.360 of the ability of that. I have to do that one. It's never been done before. But two, this is going
00:06:56.360 to look like nothing but political interference by the prime minister, by you, by everybody else that's
00:07:02.360 been involved in this, politically pressuring me to do this.
00:07:12.360 I feel like I actually really feel uncomfortable having this conversation because it's wrong.
00:07:18.360 And I hear the prime minister obviously can call me. Like I said to you, I will have a conversation.
00:07:23.360 I'm going to call Beverly McLaughlin and have a conversation about her with this with her.
00:07:28.360 Well, I mean, of course it hasn't been done before because Parliament only created the instrument
00:07:33.360 barely a year ago.
00:07:35.360 No, no, no. This instrument was, you mean the directive. The directive on a specific prosecution
00:07:42.360 has never occurred and this happened because Harper brought this line, as you probably know,
00:07:47.360 10 years ago. The directive or the DPA has never been used because it just entered the criminal
00:07:54.360 code back in September. So I understand that this is the first case. The prosecutor sent me what's
00:08:00.360 called a section 13. You told me that you hadn't seen it before, but I read it and I've re-read it
00:08:06.360 and the prime minister's office has a copy of it. She explains in it why she's not doing it in this case.
00:08:12.360 We have to, I have to be, unless it's something outrageous, comfortable with the decision,
00:08:19.360 recognizing it's the first one, likely and obviously I'm confident wasn't entered into lightly,
00:08:26.360 made the decision not to enter into a DPA with respect to this case and she explained why.
00:08:33.360 So when did she convey that to you?
00:08:36.360 She issued the section 13 back in September when I was down in Australia for, for whatever that,
00:08:44.360 for the five eyes. And then all of this transfer, I mean, I have a timeline of every single conversation
00:08:50.360 and everything that everybody's said to me on this. So, um, I like, anyway, I, I just, again, I,
00:09:01.360 I'm surprised that you and I are having this conversation, but I'm just saying that I really
00:09:06.360 feel uncomfortable and about the appropriateness of this conversation.
00:09:13.360 Okay. I understand that. I mean, I think his view is, he's not asking you to do anything appropriate
00:09:20.360 or to interfere. He's asking you to use all of the tools that you lawfully have at your disposal.
00:09:26.360 Wow.
00:09:27.360 I, I, I, I know I have a tool under, under the prosecution act that I can use.
00:09:32.360 I do not believe it is appropriate to use it in this case.
00:09:39.360 Okay. All right. I mean, that's, that's clear. Um, well, I mean, he's, he's in a very firm mood about this. So, uh,
00:09:51.360 does he understand the gravity of what this potentially could mean? This is not just about saving jobs.
00:09:57.360 This is about interfering with one of our fundamental institutions.
00:10:00.360 This is like reaching a constitutional principle of prosecutorial independence.
00:10:06.360 So we can, well, then nobody's explaining that to him, Michael.
00:10:10.360 Like this is, this is, we can stand up in the house of commons and on Norman on a totally
00:10:19.360 appropriately on Norman on extradition. And we can talk about the rule of law.
00:10:25.360 Um, that the cases aren't dissimilar the principle or the integrity of how we act and respond to the
00:10:33.360 the tools that we have available and what we should and shouldn't do. I'm again, I just, I don't know.
00:10:42.360 Okay. No, no. I mean, I respect where you're coming from. I just think.
00:10:46.360 I, you know what I, I hope that you do, because I don't think anybody respects this. I mean, the, the conversation
00:10:53.360 that Jerry and Katie had with my chief of staff and I have it, like she wrote down what they said,
00:10:59.360 like saying that they don't want to have anything or hear any more about the legalities,
00:11:05.360 but want to talk about jobs entirely inappropriate.
00:11:10.360 Okay. Well, I mean, it wasn't.
00:11:12.360 Well, we, I have it, I have it all. It's just.
00:11:15.360 Okay. But I mean, you're not just the attorney general, you're the minister of justice in the cabinet.
00:11:19.360 And no, but you have context within which you, you exercise your, your roles and responsibilities.
00:11:26.360 Like, I, I'm not seeing anything inappropriate here, but, um, I mean, you're right.
00:11:35.360 No, no, no. And the PM, I mean, I think people are talking past each other.
00:11:39.360 He, I think the way he sees it and the advice he's getting is, um,
00:11:44.360 but you still have things that you can do that are not interference and, and they're still very much lawful.
00:11:49.360 So it's not that they're not lawful, the perception and what will happen is it will be deemed political interference from day one.
00:11:58.360 When people were talking about, why are we entering into or putting a DPA regime in place?
00:12:02.360 Everybody knows it was because of SNC, whether that's true or not.
00:12:06.360 That's what people think, um, whether it's a tool used in lots of other countries, though, for these kinds of purposes.
00:12:15.360 And especially if there's been a change of ownership or management of the company that's, that's being prosecuted.
00:12:21.360 I mean, it is a, it is a public policy tool.
00:12:24.360 Fair, but in our MCs all the way up and in the law that we changed, we gave the director of public prosecutions the discretion to enter into the DPAs and a judge to oversee the regime.
00:12:35.360 There is no guarantee in any particular case, this one or the ones that will come, that they'll enter into the DPAs or think it's appropriate to do so.
00:12:44.360 And that's what we consciously made the decision on when we, we decided as a cabinet to enter into this process and I am ending, amending the law.
00:12:58.360 Is there anybody that can talk to Kathleen about the context around this or about, or to get her to explain why she's not, I mean, I guess the company has dealt with her directly, but.
00:13:09.360 The company has, and Michael, there was a preliminary inquiry, I'm still trying to get an update on what happened at the preliminary inquiry.
00:13:16.360 Like, the suggestion that I made ages ago, which Jerry talked to you about in Montreal, was, like, if nobody from the company ever contacted me or sent me a letter expressing concern, had that happened, I would have done what I believed appropriate, would have been to forward that letter on to the director of public prosecutions.
00:13:37.360 I think they've made direct representations to the prosecutor, though, and they tried to make a public interest argument and so on and so on, but they're just, they get the impression they're not being listened to, so.
00:13:50.360 Yeah.
00:13:51.360 Hmm.
00:13:52.360 Hmm.
00:13:53.360 All right, um, well, I don't, you know, I'm going to have to report back, I think, before he leaves.
00:14:03.360 He's in a pretty firm, firm frame of mind about this, though, so I'm a bit worried.
00:14:11.360 A bit worried about what?
00:14:12.360 Well, I, uh, it's not a good idea for the prime minister and his attorney general to be a barger. 0.88
00:14:21.360 Yeah.
00:14:22.360 Well, I, I feel that I'm giving him my best advice, and, um, if he doesn't accept that advice, then it's his prerogative to do what he wants, but I am trying to protect the prime minister from, um, political interference or perceived or otherwise.
00:14:38.360 Well, I understand that, but, I mean, he doesn't have the power to do what he wants.
00:14:42.360 All the tools are in your hands, so.
00:14:44.360 Okay, so then, I mean, I, I'm having, like, thoughts of, like, the Saturday night massacre here, Michael, like, to be honest with you, and, and I don't, this is not a great place for me to be in.
00:15:01.360 I don't relish being in this place, but what I am confident of is that I've given the prime minister my best advice to protect him and to protect the constitutional principle of prosecutorial independence.
00:15:12.360 Okay.
00:15:13.360 Um, all right, but, I mean, I'm worried about a collision, then, because he's pretty firm about this.
00:15:23.360 I mean, I, I just saw him a few hours ago, and this is, this is really important to him, and, okay, um, I don't know, I just, I, there's not much more we can cover now, then.
00:15:39.360 Um, I understand where you're coming from.
00:15:41.360 Um, the, the, the, sorry, the Section 13 argument or response from Kathleen, you're saying Elder has that or had, had a version of that?
00:15:52.360 The Prime Minister's office has had it since September, since I've had it.
00:15:55.360 Oh, September.
00:15:56.360 Okay.
00:15:57.360 That's important.
00:15:58.360 That's new to me, so.
00:15:59.360 Okay.
00:16:01.360 All right.
00:16:02.360 Um.
00:16:03.360 They'll tell you that they haven't received a copy of it.
00:16:06.360 Elder and Matu said it to me when they came to my office.
00:16:09.360 Um, but we have documented evidence in terms of emails, et cetera, where that has been provided.
00:16:15.360 So, they do have it, maybe they've misplaced it.
00:16:18.360 I can, I can send it back over to them, but I know that Jessica asked the other day when she was over at the PMO's office.
00:16:25.360 And what did they tell her?
00:16:26.360 That they didn't have it, or they've never seen it, or?
00:16:29.360 I, I'll have to ask.
00:16:30.360 I'll tell you exactly what they said.
00:16:31.360 I'll have to ask her.
00:16:32.360 I think, well, my advice is Jessica should send it to Elder then, just to make it, like, triply sure that they have it.
00:16:40.360 Okay.
00:16:41.360 I'll get her to do that right now.
00:16:43.360 Okay.
00:16:44.360 All right.
00:16:45.360 Okay.
00:16:46.360 Thanks for coming.
00:16:47.360 Thanks.
00:16:48.360 Thanks for coming back so quickly.
00:16:49.360 No problem.
00:16:50.360 We'll see.
00:16:51.360 He's still around tomorrow.
00:16:52.360 Um, so, um, there's a number of other things on the goal right now, so.
00:16:55.360 All right.
00:16:56.360 I'm waiting for the big, the other shoe to drop.
00:16:58.360 So, I'm not, uh, under any illusion how, um, the Prime Minister, um, has and gets things that he wants.
00:17:07.360 And, um, I'm just, uh, I'm just stuck doing the best job that I can.
00:17:13.360 Okay.
00:17:14.360 All right.
00:17:15.360 Okay.
00:17:16.360 Thanks.
00:17:17.360 Bye.
00:17:18.360 Bye.
00:17:19.360 Bye.
00:17:21.360 Bye.
00:17:22.360 Bye.
00:17:23.360 Bye.
00:17:24.360 Bye.
00:17:25.360 Bye.
00:17:26.360 Bye.
00:17:27.360 Bye.