Part 1 here, part 2 in comments.

Clerk [Wernick]: Hello.

JWR: Hello Michael, it is Jody.

C: Hi, sorry about the phone tag.

JWR: That’s ok.

C: Um…l am not calling you about litigation directive . I am calling about the other important one—the Deferred Prosecution thing/ SNC and so one—I wanted to pass on where the PM is at… so our intelligence from various sources is that company is getting to serious point now… the board has asked consulting firms for options for the board for their next which could be selling out to somebody else, moving…you know, various things.

JWR: yep.

C: So it seems to be real and not a bluff. Um, there is another rising anxiety as you can imagine about a signature firm and job loss and all that co ming after the Oshawa thing and what is going on in Calgary and what not . So the PM wants to be able to say that he has tried everything he can within legitimate toolbox to try to head that off. So he is quite determined, quite firm but he wants to know why the DPA route which Parliament provided for isn’t being used. And I think he is gonna find a way to get it done one way or another. So, he is in that kinda mood and I wanted you to be aware of that.

JWR: ok

C: So, um, I don’t know if he is going to call you directly – he might – um and he is willing – I think he is thinking about getting somebody else to give him some advice…you know he does not want to do anything outside the box of what is legal or proper – um…but his understanding is – you know – the DPA tool is there and you have options that we talked about before to ask for reason from the DPP or even take over the prosecution. He just wants to understand more at this point of why the DPA route is not taken up on this route. So he is thinking on bringing someone in like Bev Mclachlin to give him advice on this or to give you advice on this if you want to feel more uncomfort able you are not doing anything inappropriate or outside the frame of…

JWR: I am 100 percent confident that I am doing nothing inappropriate.

C: Ya, no but would not be if you decided to use some of these tools under the law…cause I think he feels that the government has to have done everything that I can before we lose 9,000 jobs…and a signature Canadian firm.

JWR: Right so – um – I again am confident in where I am at on 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 and previous conversations that I have had with Prime Minister and many other people around it – it is entirely inappropriate and it is political interference . And l…the Prime Minister obviously can talk to whomever he wants – but what I am trying to do is to protect him . I could have a conversation with Beverley Mclachlin…l can call her right now…um…l am just – um – issuing the strongest warning I can possibly issue that decision s that are made by the independent prosecutor are their decisions. We gave her, and them, the tools – the additional tools- I made it very clear at the cabinet table and other places that these tools are at the discretion of the prosecutor – and everybody agreed to that and that there was no guarantee that there would be a DPA in t his or any other case . So we are treading on dangerous ground here – and I am going to issue my stern warning – um – because I can not act in a manner and the prosecution cannot act in a manner that is not objective, that isn’t independent, I cannot act in a partisan way and I cannot be politically motivated. All of this screams of t hat . So I am actually un comfortable having this conversation but I am happy to talk to you. I will cal l Beverley Mclachlin…l cannot even imagine her fee ling in any way, sh ape or form comfortable interfering with the independent prosecutor.

C: Ok but I think that is where people are talking past each other. I mean I think t he view that h e has for med – I share – I am not the lawyer in any of these conversations – and Elder and others is – um – it is not interference – the statute specifically has these other provisions i n it that all ow you to ask questions of the OPP and that is provided for and that is not interference …

JWR: But I would have to issue a Directive, I would have to Gazette this…

C: Yes.

JWR: the Prosecutor – the director – whom I know and understand after having several conversations wit h her about another directive on HIV that I issued – she is a by the book person. If this is gazette – this will be – and I hear you on the jobs and wanting to save jobs – I mean we all want to do that – this goes far beyond saving jobs – this is about the integrity of the Prime Minister and interference – there is no way that anybody would interpret this other than interference – if I was to step in. It does not matter how I would look in doing that – I would be a mockery – and that is not t he problem – the bigger problem is what it would look like d ow n the road for the government. It is not about jobs – and I know that jobs are import ant so I do not want any body to misinterpret t hat I don’t care ab out those jobs – this is about the integrity of the government and recognizing that there is t he ability to issue a directive under the act…um …it is still irrespective of the ability that I have to do that – 1. it has never been done before but 2. t hi s is going to look like nothing but political interference by the Prime Minister, by you, by everybody else that has been involved in this politically pressuring me to do this.

C: Well…um…

JWR: I actually really feel uncomfortable havin g this conversation because it is wrong and I hear the Prime Minister obviously can call me…like I said to you I will have a conversation…I am going to call Beverley Mclachlin and have a conversation with her about his.

C: Well…of course it has not been done before because parliament only created the instrument barely a year ago…

JWR: No no no…this instrument was… you mean the directive – the directive on a specific prosecution has never occurred… And this happened… cause Harper brought this law in as you probably know 10 years ago. The Directive – or the DPA has n ever been it just entered the Criminal Code back in September so I understand that this is the first case. The prosecutor sent me what is called a Sect ion 13 – you told me that you hadn’t seen it before – but I read it and I have reread it – and the Prime Minister’s Office has a copy of it. She explains in it why she is not doing it in this case – we have to, I have to be – unless it is something outrageous – com fortable with the decision – recognizing it is the first one likely and obviously I am confident wasn’t entered into lightly – made the decision not to enter into a DPA with respect to this case. And she explained why.

C: So when did she convey that to you?

JWR: She issued the Section 13 back in September when I was down in Australia for that…five eyes – and then all this transpired…I mean I have a timeline of every single conversation and everything that everybody has said to me on this so…um… So like…anyway…again – I am surprised that you and I are having this conversation but I am just say ing that I re ll y feel uncomfortable about the appropriateness of this conversation.

C: Ok I understand that – but I mean I think his view is that his is not asking you to do anything inappropriate or interfere . He is asking you to use al l the tools that you lawfully have at your disposal…um.

JWR: I know I have a tool under the prosecution Act that I can use. I do not believe it is appropriate to use tool in this case.

C: ok alright … that is clear – um – well his is in a very firm mood about this so um….

JWR: Does he understand the gravity of what this potentially could mean – this is not about saving jobs – this is about interfering with one of our fundamental institutions – this is like breaching a constitutional principle of prosecutorial independence.

C: Well I don’t think he sees it as that…

JWR: No one is explaining that to him Michael. Like this is… we can stand up in the House of Commons on Norman on – tyotally appropriately on Norman – on extradition and we can talk about the rule of law – um… The cases are not dissimilar – the principle or the integrity of how we act and respond to the tools we have available and what we should and shouldn’t do – again …I just. l don’t know…

C: Ok, then I am – I respect where you are coming from… l just think…

JWR: You know what – I hope that you do because I do not think any body respect s this. The conversation that Gerry and Katie had with my Chief of Staff and I have it – like she wrote down what was said – saying that they do not want to hear anymore about the legalities – but want to talk about jobs is entirely in appropriate.

C: Ok well I was not

JWR: Ok I have it…l have it all.

C: Ok but you are not just the Attorney General, you are the Minist er of Justice in a cabinet and … context in which you exercise your roles and responsibilities … I am not seeing anything inappropriate here but…um… I mean … you are right … and the PM … people are talking past each other…l think the way he sees it and the advice he is getting is that you still have things you can do that are not interference and are still very much lawful…