Thank you, gentlemen, for coming before us and bringing your consolidated expertise in these matters.
I have two questions. The first is for Mr. Bouchard.
I am curious as to what problem we are trying to fix here with respect to the Director of Public Prosecutions, so my first question, Mr. Bouchard, is whether there is, to your knowledge, any recent history of challenges to the image--I think Mr. Lapointe used that word translated--or the appearance of independence in the federal prosecution.
I put this in this context, because of course the Attorney General, in that part of his dual role, is the chief law officer of the crown. He or she has a quasi-judicial responsibility in criminal prosecutions to do the very things this act sets out, except for putting direction in writing.
I am wondering if there is some great distrust in the public, related to past practice of improper interference, that we're trying to solve here. How would setting up another independent office for this DPP be different from simply the situation in British Columbia? There, the Crown Counsel Act--from where I suspect the wording for this was taken--simply requires of the prosecution service that it can take from the Attorney General direction on prosecution policy or a specific case if it's in writing and is gazetted, as you say, at the appropriate time. That's my first question.
Could that simply, without taking apart the prosecution service and putting it somewhere else, be handled sufficiently, as it has been in British Columbia, without having a new so-called independent office? I think in reality it is not much more independent than our criminal justice systems across the country.
The second point is that in his role as chief law officer of the crown, the Attorney General is not only the chief lawyer for the executive branch but also the chief legal adviser to cabinet, to Parliament, and in fact to the Governor General.
So I am interested to know that with respect to this bill, it is invariable that the Attorney General, through the Department of Justice, provides legal advice to the government on the legality, particularly the constitutional legality, of the legislation before it's tabled in the House. I see that as a firm responsibility of an Attorney General in that person's independent and even quasi-judicial role as chief law officer.
I am wondering if that was done in this case. I am assuming it was. As members of Parliament who represent one of the clients of the Attorney General of Canada, we'd be very interested in having a copy of that legal opinion.