Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on June 13th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You'll have to move it first.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Well, I move it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to rule it inadmissible, before you get going.

Amendment L-14 proposes an amendment relating to the Attorney General of Canada. It is amending section 2 of the Department of Justice Act.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at page 654 that “an amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act unless it is specifically being amended by a clause of the bill.” Since section 2 of the Department of Justice Act is not being amended by Bill C-2, it is inadmissible to propose such an amendment; therefore, amendment L-14 is inadmissible.

We'll return to clause 123 for a vote, and it was amended a number of times, if I recall.

(Clause 123 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 131 to 142 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 124 agreed to)

(On clause 125—Acting Director)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

There is a proposed amendment to clause 125 by the government on page 116; it's amendment G-41.

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Amendment G-41 replaces lines 22 and 23 on page 105 with the following:

the other Act until

Put into context, it would read:

The person who holds the position of Assistant Deputy Attorney General (Criminal law) in the Department of Justice immediately before the day in which this section comes into force is authorized to act as the Director of Public Prosecutions under

--and we continue--

the other Act until that day, and continuing after that year until the appointment of the Director of Public Prosecutions under subsection 3(1) of the other Act.

I think this is just a grandfathering clause to bridge the existing deputy attorney general into the role of Director of Public Prosecutions. Am I correct?

[Joe Wild]

There are two things happening with this amendment. The first is that it's simply clarifying that the current assistant deputy attorney general of criminal law would act as the DPP until such time as a DPP is actually appointed. So the current version of Bill C-2 required that to be a year and it's an inflexible timeframe rather than a more fluid one, which is once the appointment process can actually be completed.

The second thing the amendment is doing is also putting in place a mechanism to allow for someone to act as the Director of Public Prosecutions in the event that something happens to the assistant deputy attorney general of criminal law, again because there's a gap until the appointment can be made. This is just again putting in place a bit of a safeguard in case something were to happen to the assistant deputy attorney general of criminal law.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 125 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 126 and 127 agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Shall clause 128 carry? Carried.

Mr. Owen.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Chair, I want you to make sure that you're properly reflecting what's happening here. It's not being carried unanimously.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On division.

(Clause 128 agreed to on division)

We're going to carry on. That's a good point, Mr. Owen. Thank you, sir.

(On clause 129--Continuation of prosecutions)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is there debate on clause 129?

Mr. Owen.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Let me explain to the chair and the committee why we are against the Director of Public Prosecutions.

It seeks to resolve a problem that doesn't exist, in my mind, and perhaps I could ask through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Bouchard whether there have been issues of public concern expressed about the independent actions of the Attorney General acting in his role as Attorney General under criminal prosecution--

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On a point of order, Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I think Mr. Owen is seeking political advice and policy advice from a group who are here to advise us on technical legal matters, not to give general testimony on the state of the status quo within the Attorney General's office. They're here not to discuss the policies that we have before us, but merely to interpret the words that are on paper and what their implications would be.

Those questions would have been appropriate if they had been asked during general testimony to a witness before the committee, but they are being asked in clause-by-clause of a technical panel, and that's not appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to allow the question.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you very much.

Is there a problem, Mr. Bouchard, in your experience, which is lengthy and deep, that going to the dramatic move--that's my characterization--of creating a Director of Public Prosecutions office separate from the Department of Justice is trying to cure?

[Michel Bouchard]

Thank you for your question, sir.

I had the opportunity to testify before this committee at the start of the month, if my memory serves me, and I believe you asked me the same question. I was told my answer was good, so I'm going to repeat it.

In criminal prosecutions, appearances are often as important as, if not more important than the reality. In my career as a prosecutor, which has spanned roughly 30 years at the federal and provincial level, I have never had any problem with so-called political interventions by one of the 12 or 13 attorneys general for whom I have worked.

Appearances are at times different. Over those years, there have been, unfortunately all too often, situations in which both the public and the media had a perception of political intervention, which had not occurred. That perception was conveyed by individuals who based their assertion on what I would call circumstances that might lead them to consider that there might have been political intervention, which was not the case.

Often they came to the conclusion that the people representing the Attorney General, those acting as deputy attorneys general, were close to politicians that were accountable to their political masters. Those apparent interventions might have occurred, but, and I repeat, they in fact had not.

This provision reproduces what is done elsewhere in the Commonwealth and what has been done for about 10 years in Nova Scotia, Quebec and, for a few months and in part, what has been done in British Columbia. In Nova Scotia, a DPP was created as a result of a claim that there had been political intervention.

So in response to that question, in my last appearance before the committee, I asked whether we had to wait for a scandal before creating an institution which, in appearance and reality, gives greater independence to the Director of Criminal Prosecutions, who will be selected by parliamentarians, ultimately, based on the amendments that have been tabled this morning.

Under those provisions, we are assured that, when difficult situations arise in which the claim is made that there has been political intervention, it can always be doubted, since the individual who has made the decision will be independent of all political intervention, will be free from all political contact and, in his soul and conscience, will pursue his objective of prosecuting individuals.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I thank you for that, and I accept your expression of concern for the appearance of political interference.

Perhaps I could ask this. If the Department of Justice Act was amended—and I understand it can't be in this proceeding, Mr. Chair—to provide for the same protection of an Attorney General, as was suggested in amendment L-14, for the same provisions as for the director of prosecutions, if the Attorney General intervened in or indeed took over an individual prosecution or a general matter of prosecution policy, would that not provide the same protection against a misapprehension or a doubt in the public about the impartiality and professionalism of the process? It would provide exactly the same mechanism of giving notice in writing and gazetting that these provisions provided, but without the need for a separate Director of Public Prosecutions office.

[Michel Bouchard]

Thank your for your questions. I think the fact of ensuring that there is a comfort zone about the degree of independence that we want to give the office is a choice.

Certain models could have been adopted. In this case, preference went to the model of what I would call the summum of independence that we want to grant an individual. We want to be certain that the individual will have the most absolute power of independence. We've adopted the best models from other Commonwealth institutions.

With this bill, we're much closer to the model followed by the province of Quebec a few weeks ago. I'd even go as far as to say that we have approved on it. In Quebec, selection of the Director of Criminal Prosecutions does not involve intervention by the members of the National Assembly. Here it involves intervention by the members of the House of Commons. In the Quebec model, the appointment process involves people from the outside, but does not require the intervention of the representatives of the political parties who sit in the National Assembly. Here, with this bill, we do so for the members of the House of Commons, which ensures that the individual is recognized by all political parties and thus has greater political neutrality.

As you said, it is true that the fact that the Attorney General is required to give public instructions in writing and to publish them in the Canada Gazette is an excellent way to enable him not only to inform the public that he is taking charge of a case, but also that he will be politically accountable for his decision and will have to give the reasons why he made it.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Those are all my questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

(Clauses 129 and 130 agreed to)

(On clause 143)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I have a brief statement.

Clause 143 relates to the Access to Information Act, and as has happened before, there is a series of clauses related to this particular clause. The chair is suggesting we deal with all the amendments that pertain to the subject matter of clause 143 before we put the question on clause 143.

We will deal with the amendments to clauses 143, 144, 145.1, and 164. Once this is completed, we will put the question on 143, and its results will be applied to all the consequential clauses, namely clauses 144, 145, 145.1, and 164.

We will move on to the amendments of 143. We have a New Democratic motion on page 119 of your book, it is amendment NDP-9.

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to withdraw amendment NDP-9.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay. We now move to page 119.1, amendment NDP-9.1.

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to move amendment NDP-9.1, which is a very simple adjustment to replace in clause 143, on line 15, page 111, the reference to the Access to Information Act. It is simply changed to "the Act." I believe this enables other amendments that will be altering the name of the Access to Information Act.

(Amendment negatived)