Hello.
Hello Michael it's Jody. Hi, sorry about the phone tag.
That's okay.
I'm not calling you about the litigiation directive,
I'm calling about the other unpleasant one,
the deferred prosecution agreement thing and SNC and so on
I wanted to pass on where the PM is at,
So, our intelligence from various sources is that that the company
is getting to a very serious point now, the board has asked consulting firms for
options for the board for the next meeting which could be selling out to
somebody else, moving, you know the various things. Yep.
So, and it seems to be, seems to be
real and not a bluff, so there's a lot of things that like another rising anxiety as you could
imagine about a signature firm and job loss of all that coming after the
Oshawa thing, and what's going on in Calgary and what not, so the PM wants
to be able to say that he has tried everything he can, you know within within
a legitimate toolbox, to try to head that off so he's quite determined, quite firm that
wants, he wants to know why the DPA route which Parliament provided for isn't
isn't being used and I think he's going to find a way to get it done one way or
another, so he's in that kind of mood and I want you to be aware of that. Okay.
So, he's, I don't know if he's going to call you directly, he might,
and he's willing, I think he's thinking about getting somebody else
to give him some advice, he doesn't, he doesn't want to do anything that's outside the box of what's legal or proper,
but his understanding is, you know, the DPA tool is there and you have options
that we've talked about before, to ask for reasoning from the DPP, or even to take over the prosecution.
He just wants to understand more at this point why the DPA route isn't being
taken up in this route. So he's thinking about bringing in somebody like Bev McLachlin to give him advice on this,
or to give you advice if you want to feel more comfortable that you're not doing anything that inappropriate or outside the...
I'm 100% confident I'm doing nothing inappropriate. Yep. No, but would not be
if you decided to use some of these tools under the law
because I think he feels the government has to have done everything it can
before we lose 9,000 jobs in a signature Canadian firm.
Right. So,
I'm again, I'm confident in where
I'm at and my views on SNC and the DPA haven't changed. This is a
constitutional principle of prosecutorial independence that Michael
I have to say, including this conversation, previous conversations that
I've had with the Prime Minister and many other people around, that it's
entirely inappropriate. And it is political interference and I, the Prime
Minister obviously can talk to whomever he wants, but what I am trying to do is
to protect him. I can have a conversation with Beverley McLaughlin I can call her
right now. I am just issuing the strongest warning I can possibly issue
that decisions that are made by the independent prosecutor are
their decisions. We gave, we gave her and them the tools, the additional tools, I
made it very clear at the cabinet table and in other places, that these tools are
the discretion of the prosecutor and everybody agreed to that and there was
no guarantee that there would be a DPA in this or any other case so we are
treading on dangerous ground here so I'm gonna issue my stern warning because I
can't act in a manner and the prosecution can't act in a manner that
is not objective that isn't independent, I can't act in a partisan way and it can
be politically motivated. All of this screams of that so I'm actually
uncomfortable having this conversation but I'm happy to talk to you. I, I can,
I'll call Beverly McLachlin and I can't even imagine her feeling in any way
shape or form comfortable with interfering with the independent prosecutor.
Okay, but I think that's were people are talking past each other, I mean I think the view that
he's formed which I think I share, I'm not the lawyer in any of these conversations, and Elder and others is it's not interference, the statute
specifically has these other provisions in it that allow you to ask questions of the DPP
and that's provided for, it's not interference.
But I would, but I would have to issue a directive, I would have
to gazette this. The prosecutor, the director whom I know and understand after having
several conversations with her about another directive on HIV that I issued,
she's a by-the-book person. If this gazetted this will be, and this is not
and I hear you on the jobs and wanting to save jobs I mean we all want to do
that, this is goes far beyond saving jobs. This is about the integrity of the Prime
Minister and interference there's no way that anybody would interpret this other
than interference if I was to step in. It wasn't matter how I would look in doing
that I mean I'd be a mockery and that's not the problem, the bigger problem is
what it would look like down the road for the government, is not about jobs and
I know that jobs are important so I don't want anybody to misinterpret that
I don't care about those jobs, this is about the integrity of the government
and recognizing that there is the ability to issue a directive under the
Act, it is still irrespective of the ability of that I have to do that, one
it's never been done before, but two this is going to look like nothing but
political interference by the Prime Minister, by you by, everybody else that's
been involved in this, politically pressuring me to do this.
Well, I mean...
I actually really feel uncomfortable having this conversation because it's
wrong and I hear and the Prime Minister obviously can call me like I said to you
I will have a conference, I'm gonna call Beverly McLachlin and have a
conversation about her, with this with her.
Well of course it hasn't been done before because parliament only created the instrument barely a year ago.
No, no, no this instrument was, you
mean the directive, the directive [yep] on a specific prosecution has never occurred
and this happened because Harper brought this law in as you probably know ten
years ago. The directive has, the DPA has never been used because it just
entered the Criminal Code back in September so I understand that this is
the first case. The prosecutor sent me what's called a Section 13 you told me
that you hadn't seen it before but I've read it and I've reread it and the Prime
Minister's Office has a copy of it. She explains in it why she's not doing it in
this case. We have to, I have to be, unless it's something outrageous, comfortable
with the decision recognizing it's the first one, likely and obviously I'm
confident wasn't entered into lightly, made the decision not to enter into a
DPA with respect to this case and she explained why.
So when did she convey that to you?
She issued the Section 13
back in September when I was down in Australia
for or whatever that, for the Five Eyes and then all this transpired I mean I have
a timeline of every single conversation and everything that everybody's said to
me on this, so if like anyway I just again I I'm surprised that you and I are
having this conversation, but I'm just saying that I really feel uncomfortable
and about the appropriateness of this conversation. I I know I have a tool
Okay, I understand that. I mean I think his view is that he is not asking you to do anything
inappropriate or to interfere. He's asking you to use all of the tools that you lawfully have at your disposal.
I know I have a tool
under, under the prosecution act that I can use. I do not believe it is
appropriate to use it in this case.
Okay, alright. I mean that's clear, well he's in a very firm mood about this so...
Does he understand the gravity of what this
potentially could mean. This is not just about saving jobs this is about
interfering with one of our fundamental institutions. This is like reaching a
constitutional principle of prosecutorial independence. So we can...
Well I don't think he sees it as that...
Well then nobody's explaining that to him Michael, like this is, this is
we can stand up in the House of Commons and on Norman on a totally appropriately on
Norman on extradition and we can talk about the rule of law. That the cases
aren't dissimilar the principle or the integrity of how we act and respond to
the tools that we have available and what we should and shouldn't do I'm
again I just I don't know.
Okay, then I respect where you're coming from and just...
You know what I like I hope that you do because I don't think anybody respects
this. I mean the conversation that Jerry and Katie had with my chief of staff and
I have it, like she wrote down what they said, like saying that they don't want to
have anything or hear anymore about the legalities but want to talk about jobs
entirely inappropriate.
Okay, well I wasn't...
Well, I have it, I have it all. It's just...
Okay, but you are not just the Attorney General, you're the Minister of Justice in the cabinet and,
you have context within which you exercise your roles and responsibilities,
like I'm not seeing anything inappropriate here but, I mean you're right,
and the PM I think, people are talking past each other, he, I think the way he sees it
and the advice he's getting is you still have things you can do that are not interference and they're still very much lawful.
It's not that they're not lawful the perception and what will happen is it will be deemed
political interference from day one when people we're talking about why are we
entering into or putting a DPA regime in place everybody knows it was because
of SNC whether that's true or not that's what people think
Yeah but it's a tool used in lots of other countries though [fair]
for these kinds of purposes and especially if there has been a change of ownership
or management of the company that is being prosecuted, I mean
it is a public policy tool.
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. 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. And that's what we consciously made the decision on when we decided as a
cabinet to enter into this process and I amending, amending the law.
Is there anybody that can talk to Kathleen then about the context around this
or to get her to explain why she's not, I mean, I guess the company has dealt with her directly...
The company has and Michael but there was a preliminary inquiry I'm still
trying to get an update on what happened at the preliminary inquiry. Like the
suggestion that I made ages ago of 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.
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 just
they gave the impression they're not being listened to.
Yeah.
Alright, well I don't, I'm going to have to report back I think before he leaves.
He's in a pretty firm frame of mind about this though so, I'm a bit worried...
A bit worried about what?
Well, it's not a good idea for the Prime Minister and his Attorney-General to be at loggerheads.
Well I feel that I'm giving him my best advice and 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 political interference or perceived
or otherwise.
I understand that but he doesn't have the power to do what he wants
all the tools are in your hands.
Okay so then, I mean I'm having like thoughts of the
Saturday night massacre here Michael like to be honest with you and I don't
this is not a great place for me to be in 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.
Alright but...
I'm worried about a collision then because he's pretty firm about this,
I mean I just saw him a few hours ago and this is really important to him and,
okay,
I, there's not much more we can cover now then,
I understand where you're coming from. Sorry the Section 13
argument, or response from Kathleen, you're saying Elder has that or had a version of that?
The Prime Minister's Office
has had it since September since I've had it.
September, okay, that's important that's new to me, okay, alright
They'll tell you that
haven't received a copy of it Eldar and Mathieu said it to me when they came to my
office but we have documented evidence in terms of emails etc where that has
been provided so they do have it, maybe they've misplaced it.
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.
And what did they tell her? That they didn't have it or they've never seen it?
I'll have to ask I'll
exactly what they said, I'll have to ask her.
I think, well, my advice is Jessica should send it to Elder then just
to make it like triply sure that they have it.
Okay. I'll get her to do that right now.
Okay, alright.
Okay. Thanks for calling me back so quickly.
No problem.
We'll see, he's still around tomorrow so...
Waiting for the big the other shoe to drop so I'm not under any illusion how
the Prime Minister has and gets things that he wants and I am just I'm just
stuck doing the best job that I can.
Okay, alright. [Okay] We'll talk again.
Thanks. Bye-bye.
Bye.