Evidence of meeting #4 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was prosecutions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:15 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Your independence is framed by two guideposts. Law students learn that the provinces prosecute Criminal Code offences and that attorneys, that is the federal government, act in cases under federal statutes.
So there must always be two guideposts. Ultimately, even if you decided not to prosecute, the Attorney General could intervene and apply a kind of veto.
12:15 p.m.
Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Prosecution Service of Canada
Yes, that's included in the act.
12:15 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
It's interesting, Mr. Chairman, that we have a copy of sections 10 and 14.
12:15 p.m.
Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Prosecution Service of Canada
I'm told that it's section 15, not section 14. I apologize. Section 10 gives the Attorney General the right to issue a directive, and section 15 gives him the right to assume conduct of the prosecution.
12:15 p.m.
Bloc
12:15 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
First I'd like to know the difference between the new service that you direct and the old one.
Then I'd like you to describe to us in a few words the process followed in the case of the position of permanent director of public prosecutions, for which I did not rule out the possibility of applying.
12:15 p.m.
Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Prosecution Service of Canada
I'll have no trouble answering the second question: I'm not involved in the selection process.
As to the first, you want to know the difference between the old service—
12:15 p.m.
Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Prosecution Service of Canada
I believe that Minister Toews said when he appeared before the parliamentary committee to discuss the bill that undue interference had not at all been a problem in the old system, but that he wanted to see a new kind of guarantee designed to protect prosecutors applied.
In future, if the Attorney General wants to intervene in a case, he will have to do so in a very different manner. As you know, Quebec, Nova Scotia and some Commonwealth countries have also adopted the system involving a director of public prosecutions.
12:15 p.m.
Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Prosecution Service of Canada
Thank you.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here.
I want to pursue the same issue, but I won't be as subtle as Mr. Ménard, who rarely is.
On the setting up the Mulroney-Schreiber inquiry, I guess I was under the same misapprehension that it would have been the Director of Public Prosecutions who normally would be giving advice as to the mandate of that inquiry. I understand from your evidence that this is not the case.
Mr. Saunders, as you are from that department, who in the department would normally have given advice to the minister as to the mandate of a public inquiry of that nature?
12:15 p.m.
Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Prosecution Service of Canada
Let me explain why he wouldn't give advice on the mandate. A public inquiry is not a criminal process.
12:15 p.m.
Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Prosecution Service of Canada
Our mandate is limited to giving advice to investigative agencies in criminal matters.
To answer your question, the mandate would be considered by a number of officials within the Department of Justice. They have an assistant deputy attorney general in charge of litigation; they have associate deputy ministers who I assume would have been involved in working on that. But as I understand from reading the media, the government has retained Mr. Johnston to give advice on the terms of reference for that commission of inquiry.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
But historically the advice would normally have come from within the department?
12:15 p.m.
Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Prosecution Service of Canada
Yes, but other officials in government can also give advice, depending on the scope and nature of the inquiry.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
The chair and I agree strongly that we don't do a good job on estimates, and this is one of the occasions.
I've been trying to figure out whether the severing of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions from the Department of Justice as a separate division is costing us substantially more or less, and I can't figure it out from the estimates. I'm not an accountant, obviously, but I would have thought there would be a clearer set of figures. And maybe I'm missing them; maybe they're there. So my first question is, has analysis been done as to whether this severing is less expensive, more expensive, or the same as the costs before? And if the analysis has been done, what are the findings?
12:20 p.m.
Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Prosecution Service of Canada
I think it can be explained quite simply, Mr. Comartin.
First, the budget of the former Federal Prosecution Service—which was part of the Department of Justice—was transferred to our organization. In addition, we were provided in budget 2006 with $15 million in one-time transition costs to pay for accommodations, given that some of our office had to move out of shared space with the Department of Justice, and also for informatics, or information technology.
A lot of that money, as you note, has been reprofiled. In this supplementary estimate, we're asking for $2 million for this year. In a sense, we could not reasonably spend the $15 million for relocation and informatics this year. We were waiting to develop a national accommodations plan and in effect to hire a chief information officer. We wanted to spend it in a rational fashion, so we reprofiled it so we can have access to those one-time funds in future years.
The second element in budget 2006 given to us to help us create this new organization was $7.8 million, which is part of the $9 million. After you subtract employee benefits, it comes out to $7.1 million, which will allow us to hire our management staff. For example, when we were with the Department of Justice, there was a director general of human resources, who did our work and that of the rest of the department. As a new organization, we have to hire our own human resources individual, our own chief information officer, and others, whom we call the senior management.
If you look at the costs that Parliament has given to us to establish a new organization, it is composed of three elements: the money transferred, representing the budget of the former FPS; the $15 million in one-time transition costs; and the $7.8 million, including the employee benefit plans, in order to allow us to set up our management structure.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
This is not my strong point, by any means, but I'm going to conclude that because of the additional administrative expenses, there will be a slight additional percentage cost—not in absolute dollars—in the administration of the department for public prosecutions beyond what it would have been had we left it with the Department of Justice. Is that fair?
12:20 p.m.
Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Prosecution Service of Canada
Yes. As I explained, if you establish a new department and you now have two directors general of human resources, whereas before you had one, there is an increased cost, that's clear.
