Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 28th, 2014

[Brian J. Saunders]

Pursuant to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, I conduct prosecutions under and on behalf of the attorney general.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

But effectively you're a deputy minister, correct?

[Brian J. Saunders]

I'm a deputy head, yes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

So your immediate boss is the minister. Is that fair?

[Brian J. Saunders]

The parameters of the relationship between my office and the attorney general's office are set out in the act—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Agreed, sir, but for reporting purposes—I'm tight on time, so if I'm being a little curt, I apologize—effectively the attorney general is your reporting boss.

[Brian J. Saunders]

Yes, but the reporting that I do is different from the reporting that you would find in other departments.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

How about the CEO? Who's his boss? It's Parliament. There's the problem. The elections commissioner is going to move from a current position where the person who holds that position, their boss, is accountable to all of Parliament, to a position where their boss is one step away from the attorney general, and has all the power. That is a huge problem of perception.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Your time is up.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's fine. It was rhetorical anyway.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I got that.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[An hon. member]

But that did not escape our notice.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It's an ancient skill; come on.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I want to pick up a little bit on a misperception that unfortunately the opposition seems to be trying to promote, and that is that under the current situation the commissioner of elections has complete independence. That simply is not the case.

I'm not going to ask you to comment on policy, but let me point out for the benefit of the committee, and those Canadians who may be watching, that under the current system Elections Canada can hire, fire, and direct the commissioner of elections on which investigations to pursue. It's that latter part that shows, I believe quite clearly, that under the current system the commissioner of elections does not have complete independence.

If the CEO of Elections Canada can tell the commissioner of elections to pursue an investigation, then the commissioner of elections does not have complete independence. Under the proposed legislation, that ability of anyone to tell the commissioner of elections which investigation to pursue is gone. The ability to conduct investigations will solely be determined by the commissioner of elections.

Do you not agree that this demonstrates complete independence on the investigatory portion of the relationship between you and the commissioner of elections?

[Brian J. Saunders]

Without taking a position on the policy ramifications, let me say that under the proposed bill, the commissioner will have the right to conduct his investigation independently of the DPP. I will not have, and no one in my organization will have, the authority to direct the commissioner to conduct an investigation.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you for supporting and underscoring my point.

Although the opposition continues to say that under the current legislation and under the current system the commissioner of elections has complete independence, he does not. If someone can instruct the commissioner of elections on what investigations to pursue, that means someone else is pulling the strings. We believe, and it's indicated in the fair elections act, the commissioner of elections should have complete independence upon what investigations to pursue. I thank you for agreeing with my assessment on that.

Finally, sir, let me just ask you this. You mentioned before that you believe the threshold of perception is fairly low. Do you not believe the most important consideration in legislation is the reality? In other words, you have indicated that the only difficulty you're bringing to the attention of this committee is one of perception. In reality, however, there is a complete distinction, a complete separation of authority between your office and the commissioner of elections, and complete independence.

[Brian J. Saunders]

The reality of the independence will be respected, though I hope I made it clear that perception is important to us. It's important to public confidence in the administration of justice that the perception that prosecutors exercise their discretion independently of investigators is maintained.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Would you simply agree that the reality is more important than the perception? I agree that perception is important, but the reality is that there is complete independence between your office and that of the commissioner of elections.

[Brian J. Saunders]

No. I'd have to disagree with that. I think it's very important to maintain the perception of the independence of the prosecutorial function.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, might there be any time for a quick question from me at the end of the round? I'm just checking with you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

If the group agrees, there may be a chance.