Justice Committee on May 17th, 2007

[Brian Saunders]

We can consult—I mean, one of my colleagues always says “Independence doesn't mean isolation”. It's always been recognized in the jurisprudence that a DPP or an attorney general, in those jurisdictions where the attorney general is responsible for prosecutions, can consult with whomever, but the decision to start the prosecution, to continue the prosecution, to go on appeal, must be exercised independent of any partisan influence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Finally, take the Air India debacle, going from investigation, through prosecution, through everything. Do you see yourselves in a role that would avoid such a thing in the future?

[Brian Saunders]

We weren't involved. That was a provincial prosecution conducted by the AG of British Columbia.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Would you be involved in the future?

[Brian Saunders]

It depends what the charges were laid under. Those were, as I recall, Criminal Code prosecutions for murder.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Terrorists.

[Brian Saunders]

If there were a terrorism charge laid against someone, we would be involved. For example, right now our prosecutors are working on two terrorism cases, one in Toronto and one here in Ottawa.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Good. Thank you.

Mr. LeBlanc, do you have a question?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Ms. Ratansi, do you have a question?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

No, I don't.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Thompson.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you.

The chairman hit pretty well on the topic I wanted to talk about—fisheries—but I'd like to carry it just a little further.

First of all, the document I have says, “the prosecution of federal offences to protect the environment, natural resources, economic and social health”. I'm not sure what all that entails. I don't quite understand. What would your involvement be, for example, with natural resources?

[Brian Saunders]

We conduct prosecutions under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Okay.

In my riding there have been several charges brought against people that I thought were pretty silly, to say the least, and some that made sense. For example, a lake once existed in an area called Exshaw. The lake dried because of dry years, and drought settled in. The bottom of the lake has a certain amount of sediment on it, and when the winds start blowing, it starts moving, when it dries up. It became a dust problem to the town, so a group of people came together, went in, and tore up the bottom of that lake and seeded it to grass, to try to hold down the dust. But they got no permission to do so, so charges were brought forward by Fisheries and Oceans against this group of people for taking up a cause: to stop a problem that they couldn't seem to get action going on, because Fisheries and Oceans wouldn't authorize any action.

Are you involved in that kind of silliness?

[Brian Saunders]

If there were a charge under the Fisheries Act, our prosecutors would be responsible for conducting the prosecution. Again, we wouldn't be responsible for the investigation leading to the prosecution. That would be done by fisheries investigators or by the RCMP, I assume.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

But while you're prosecuting, you are certainly taking the evidence of the investigators. I'm really trying to understand why I have so many problems in my riding under the laws of natural resources, where people put in a culvert in order to prevent a flood situation and yet they are charged under the Natural Resources Act or some part of it for doing so without permission.

I know of a farmer, for example, who put a burlap bag in at an area called Pine Creek. If you held your glass at a little bit of an angle to get a flow of water, that's about how much water would run down this creek. He laid this little bag in there to dam it up, to back it up, so his cattle could have a drink. He would fall over that and go on. The authorities came and laid a charge against him under the Fisheries Act for having put that in there, so prosecution has to take place. Do you deal with that kind of thing?

What I'm talking about is the number of silly little things. What the people are doing makes sense, yet charges always come out of these things.

[Brian Saunders]

It would be inappropriate for me to comment on individual cases, but in terms of whether our prosecutors conduct cases under the Fisheries Act, the answer is yes. From what you've described, you could be talking as well about charges under provincial legislation, and we wouldn't be doing those.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Then that's part of my question. In terms of your statement in here on prosecutions related to natural resources, where does that differ? When does it become provincial, and when is it yours?

[Brian Saunders]

The dividing line here is quite simple. If charges are laid under a federal statute, then it is our prosecutors who conduct the prosecution. If charges are laid under provincial legislation, it would be the provincial Attorney General's office.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

But if streams and rivers and creeks are all under the authority of Fisheries and Oceans, would they not all be federal charges?

[Brian Saunders]

Yes, but a province could have certain legislation as well, such as on land use planning, that could lead to charges. But insofar as the charge is laid under federal legislation—the Fisheries Act is one such piece of legislation—our prosecutors would be responsible.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

In the past when I tried to get information, it seemed like I would be tossed from one place to another, and I was getting nowhere.

Who's laying the charge? The federal government. Who's the lawyer representing my constituent? Does he have to get his own lawyer? Yes, he does. Who's he fighting against? It doesn't seem to be very clear.

As an MP, these issues are brought to your attention on a regular basis. I'll be honest with you by saying that most of the time, I'm not too sure where to go with them. If you go provincial on them, they turn out to be federal. If you go federal.... You get tossed around all over the place. Is setting up your establishment going to make that any better?

[Brian Saunders]

We have an Internet site that we're going to populate with information, to use the expression of the techies. We will have information about what our areas of responsibility are, so that people can go there and see it.

That's the best I can do in terms of telling individuals what course they should take when they face a prosecution. They, themselves, should read the information. Whatever document is given to them will tell them clearly under what legislation the charges are laid, and that's the starting point in determining which provincial or federal jurisdiction is involved.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

It seems like these numbers of issues crop up quite often, particularly in areas that may be subject to flooding and drought and all of that. I hope we can get some clarity on that. I have a hard time dealing with these things, because the constituents come to me.