Justice Committee on May 17th, 2007

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I know it's not about nailing down percentages, but have you had successful prosecutions in terms of getting convictions?

[Brian Saunders]

We never look at whether we win or lose a case. It goes back to the famous dictum in the Supreme Court of Canada case called Boucher. We're not there to win or lose a case; we're there to put the case fairly before the courts.

You'll see in our report that we talk about a measure of success being whether we got a decision on the merits. We think we're successful if we get a case that goes before the court and the court makes the decision, whether it's an acquittal or a conviction. That's what our job is: to make sure it gets before the court.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

That's interesting, Mr. Saunders. In other words, statistics don't play a role in terms of where you need to go. You deal with each case on its merits and present it that way.

[Brian Saunders]

I wouldn't say statistics don't play a role. As you notice, we do keep track of how many cases we run, and we do keep time, so that we can allocate our resources in a rational way. But when it comes to what the won-lost record is, that is not a factor whatsoever in our thinking.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I noticed something from a financial perspective. It was interesting that in 2007-08, this fiscal year, the financial resources would be about $125 million. It goes up to about $128 million for the next year, and it comes back down again to $125 million in 2009-10. Could you detail the reasons for that? For the period of 2008-09, I see there will actually be an additional fifteen employees. Could you just expand on that a little bit to explain to us why there's the bump, and then what will happen once it comes back down?

[Brian Saunders]

I'll start off the answer, and then Mr. Fortin will complete it.

It's my understanding that it goes down a bit because some of the money that we receive to do what are called IMETs—integrated market enforcement teams—sunsets. This was an initiative that was for three or four years, and I believe that money ends this year. As a result, our budget goes down.

Maybe Mr. Fortin can assist.

[Dr. Marc Fortin, General Counsel and Director, Corporate Services Division, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions]

Some of the funding base we have we refer to as sunsetted initiatives; i.e., we receive funding for three or four years subject to an evaluation and a renewal. When an initiative ends, let's say, in 2008-2009, we cannot, of course, include the same level by way of indication, even, for 2009-2010, because we don't have the authority to have these resources; they're subject to renewal, either though an MC or other means. That explains the variations from year to year; we have to take the sunsetted initiatives into consideration.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

The other question I have relates to the funding levels, and it gets back to my original point. Do you actually link, or can you link, the funding levels and the amount of prosecuting you can actually perform? Do you tie those two things together?

[Brian Saunders]

Yes, we do.

To give you an example, we have a system that's been in place for a few years, where additional funding is given for policing initiatives. You'll see in our report that we refer to some additional moneys related to a federal policing initiative that we have to get by way of supplementary estimates. That initiative allows the RCMP to hire additional officers. When that occurs, we try to get involved as well at the submission stage to ensure that additional prosecutors are also hired; it makes no sense hiring additional police officers, if you don't hire prosecutors. Otherwise, at the end of the day, if they lay charges, there'll be no one there to prosecute them.

As part of that initiative, and other initiatives as well, we tag on and say.... We have a formula that we use, saying that if you have 100 additional police officers, there should be 20 new prosecutors to ensure there's someone to prosecute any charges laid by these officers.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

So there's a little bit of ebb and flow to the budget, in the sense that you try to outline in your budget at the beginning of the year what you're going to need, but obviously the purpose of supplementary requests to the Treasury Board.... Do you do that on a regular basis? You did that last year, and you did it the year before.

[Brian Saunders]

We didn't do it, because we were part of the Department of Justice before.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Okay, so that's how Justice moved through that in the past. When you identified a particular number you might have needed, it was set out in the budget. At the same time, if you didn't need it, you wouldn't go to Treasury Board; and when you did actually need the funding, you obviously had to make your case to Treasury Board as to exactly what the money was going to be spent on.

[Brian Saunders]

Well, we had to make our case with Justice first, is my understanding of the past.

If I could just add, there's one area where we do find it difficult, and that is when the provinces decide to increase their resources. If Ontario decides to increase its police resources, or the City of Toronto decides to increase its police resources, or they change their priorities and decide to focus on drugs, we don't receive money for that; yet it will increase our workload. That's always been a problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Dykstra.

Mr. Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Good morning. Thank you for coming here today.

I am pleased to be able to associate a face with an organization that I know well, given that I've practised criminal law for 25 years. I have pleaded against some excellent attorneys. I would like to congratulate you. I hope that my colleagues opposite will retain what I am saying to you. I sincerely believe that some of your attorneys are the best in Canada. They arrive prepared and, most of the time, they are dealing with some very complex files.

In the area of international crime, you have some accredited attorneys who are truly excellent. I am one of those who, 25 years ago, recommended to the Quebec Bar that it request the federal Department of Justice to set up an Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and for one reason alone. This reason is summarized by the words written in the document handed to us, namely: "independent of any improper influence and respects the public interest".

That means that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be an offshoot of the Department of Justice, meaning that it will be a place that deals specifically, as is the case in Quebec, with those individuals that I would call the federal Crown attorneys.

[Brian Saunders]

Indeed, but I would like to provide you with some clarification. Here, in Ottawa, our headquarters is located in the same building as the Department of Justice, but we intend to move as soon as possible. However, we have to wait until the space is available.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Look over there, you should be telling this to them.

[Brian Saunders]

All right.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

It is important to ensure neutrality.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you Mr. Lemay. In how many years?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

No, no, in a few months.

[Brian Saunders]

I repeat that there has been no improper interference. There are 16 regional offices. Our regional offices are often located in the same building as Department of Justice offices, because the Federal Prosecution Services also deals with justice. We decided to install different doors, develop different ID cards, but we are not going to break our lease simply to demonstrate transparency.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I do understand; I said that because image is important.

Let's talk about your integrated teams. I do have some doubts, because I heard something. I think that one of the better things that the federal government has done—that was even imitated by Quebec—took place in a fight against organized crime. Here I'm referring to the Wolverine squad, etc. Just imagine, I am a defence lawyer. So I am not talking in my best interest. Do you intend, regardless of who is the Director of Public Prosecutions, to keep these integrated team which work in an effective fashion? If not, why? If so, how?

[Brian Saunders]

We do intend to keep them because we find that such teams are effective.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Pardon me, I must interrupt you. Could you provide us with some more details? I am not sure that all of my colleagues around the table know what we are talking about. What are integrated teams? You may then answer my first question.