QUESTION PERIOD — Justice
Judicial Review
March 22, 2024
My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
Leader, you indicated earlier this week that the former justice minister, Mr. Lametti, had relied on the opinions of two retired judges to order a new trial in Justice Delisle’s case, but you’re still refusing to disclose more information about those opinions. However, leader, he was found guilty by three courts of justice, with full evidence and in a proper adversarial context.
Can you tell us the names of those two retired judges? On what date did they provide those opinions to the minister, and in what form? By what process or criteria were those retired judges chosen by the minister to provide their opinions?
Thank you for the question.
Colleague, as a former government leader in the Senate, you are very familiar with the rules governing legal opinions solicited by the government. They are protected for reasons of good governance.
That being said, the decision remains the prerogative of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. As I explained a few days ago, based on the information I have, Minister Virani does not intend to disclose the details of those legal opinions.
Leader, you are correct. I know the rules very well; the opinion belongs to the government and it is up to the government to decide whether to waive solicitor-client privilege or not. It has the discretion required to do so.
That is why this decision both harms and discredits the administration of justice. In fact, that is what Patrick Michel, Quebec’s Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, thinks.
Do you agree that the lack of government transparency contributes to this perception?
I will make my answer simple: No, I do not agree.
