Prosecution service rejects interference claim
Questioned on meetings with PCO lawyers
OTTAWA • The federal prosecution service is fighting back against allegations of political interference raised in court by Vice Admiral Mark Norman’s lawyers on Monday.
In a statement released Tuesday afternoon, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada says its meetings with government lawyers were necessary to identify potential witnesses for the trial — and not a case of the Prime Minister’s Office trying to exert political influence, as Norman’s lawyer Christine Mainville alleged.
“In the process of preparing for trial, the PPSC was looking to identify potential witnesses who could explain issues of cabinet confidence, as it is applied by the Clerk of the Privy Council,” the statement said. “The PPSC will be producing an unredacted version of the notes on Friday to the judge. The PPSC has not sought or received instructions in respect of the prosecution of Mr. Norman from the Privy Council Office or any other government department or body.”
The statement said the principle of prosecutorial independence is key to the PPSC’s mandate.
The prosecution service’s director, Kathleen Roussel, said in the statement that she is “confident that our prosecutors, in this and every other case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”
Norman faces one criminal charge of breach of trust for allegedly leaking cabinet secrets, an allegation he has denied. The court has been hearing a pre-trial motion on the defence’s access to a trove of government documents.
Mainville had raised concerns over redacted notes from meetings between prosecutors and lawyers from the Privy Council Office, the bureaucracy that supports the prime minister and the federal cabinet.
Some of the notes were redacted under litigation privilege, and lead prosecutor Barbara Mercier told Mainville that the redactions were necessary because the discussions concerned “trial strategy.”
“We maintain that discussions about how to run the trial are protected by litigation privilege,” Mercier wrote in email to Mainville.
This led Mainville to call on the judge to vet the redactions and determine whether they should be fully disclosed. She also alleged that the discussions appear to have been inappropriate government interference in the case, describing the Privy Council Office as the “right arm” of the Prime Minister’s Office, given the Privy Council reports to the prime minister.
Mainville alluded to a separate, ongoing controversy of political interference in the criminal justice system. The Globe and Mail reported last week that the Prime Minister’s Office put pressure on then-attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to direct prosecutors to drop corruption charges against SNCLavalin in favour of a remediated agreement. Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion is investigating the case; earlier on Tuesday, Wilson-Raybould resigned from cabinet.
“In my respectful submission … the position the Crown is taking is more concerning, I would say, than the allegations relating to SNC-Lavalin,” Mainville said. “The Prime Minister’s Office, by way of its right arm, the PCO, is dealing directly with the (prosecution service), and the prosecution service apparently is allowing this to happen.”
That prompted an interjection from Justice Heather Perkins McVey. “So much for the independence of the PPSC,” she said.
Perkins-McVey will receive the unredacted notes as a sealed exhibit on Friday, when the Crown is expected to fully respond to the defence’s accusations. The judge had invited the Crown to respond on Monday, but the prosecutors said they needed more time — in part because Mercier was travelling out of province on another matter.
A senior government source, speaking on condition of confidentiality in order to discuss the matter, told the National Post on Monday that the defence’s description of the Privy Council lawyers acting as the “right arm” of the PMO was wrong. The source said it is normal for prosecutors to meet with Privy Council lawyers in a case involving cabinet leaks.
It is the nature of those discussions, however, which are key to the defence.
“We have not suggested that the mere fact of meeting is an issue,” Mainville told reporters on Monday. “But the claim of litigation privilege in respect of those meetings would be a problem, because that privilege is intended for devising trial strategy. It’s intended to protect the adversarial process, and frankly the Privy Council Office or the Prime Minister’s Office should not be an adversary to Vice-Admiral Norman in this case, and certainly not in conjunction with the prosecution service.”
THE PPSC HAS NOT SOUGHT OR RECEIVED INSTRUCTIONS ... FROM THE PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE.