Justice Committee on Nov. 29th, 2007

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

That's good. Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

As one point of clarification from the chair, were there 60,000 cases tried in 2006?

[Brian Saunders]

There were 60,000 cases handled by our prosecutors.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Okay, “handled”.

[Brian Saunders]

That would include new files and also files that are continued from the previous year, because, unfortunately, files are often not completed in one year. When you're dealing with complex cases, they can go on for a couple of years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

How many of the 60,000 would be related to drugs?

[Brian Saunders]

The majority of our work is drug-related. I believe—and Mr. Fortin will correct me if I'm wrong—in terms of money expenditures, about 77% of our resources are spent on drug prosecutions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

What other federal charges, then, would you be handling with the other 23%?

[Brian Saunders]

We do a large number of what we call “regulatory” prosecutions. Those would be any of the many federal statutes that contain offences. The primary ones we do would be revenue prosecutions, Fisheries Act prosecutions, and customs prosecutions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Great. Thank you very much.

We'll go to Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you very much. I apologize for not being here when you made your presentation.

I missed your assurances that the Public Prosecution Service of Canada has been delegated all the AG's authority when the AG has to authorize an actual prosecution, regardless of which law it is under. It's all been delegated to the Public Prosecution Service by law, in which case, I then have this question. Janet Hinshaw-Thomas was prosecuted. Charges were brought against her under section 117 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act on the basis that she had aided and abetted illegal entry into Canada. That particular section requires the specific authorization or the express authorization of the AG. If that power, that authority, has been delegated to the Public Prosecution Service, then I would like to know why the Public Prosecution Service authorized the laying of such charges.

Second, the charges have now been dropped. So I would like to know why the Public Prosecution Service decided to drop the charges and what interpretation you are giving to section 117. Is it in conformity with the assurances that had been given by then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Elinor Caplan to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration that good Samaritan human rights activists would never be prosecuted under that, and that's why it requires the express authority of the AG?

[Brian Saunders]

I answered this questioned a few minutes ago, but I'll answer it again.

I mentioned that under subsection 117(3), there is a requirement for the Attorney General's consent, and that authority has been delegated to the Director of Public Prosecutions. We have a deskbook called the Federal Prosecution Service Deskbook that we have been directed by the Attorney General of Canada, pursuant to a directive under section 10 of our act, to use. That deskbook contains a chapter on delegation that sets out the levels of delegation for cases in which the Attorney General's involvement or consent is required.

In the case of subsection 117(3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, it's been delegated down to the regional director of an office.

In the case you've mentioned, our prosecutors, including the regional director, were presented with a crown brief prepared by investigators, as is the case with any case, which they were asked to consider for the purpose of consent. They looked at it with these two guiding principles in mind, and these are principles that are applied by all prosecution services in respect of any case that comes before them: Was there a reasonable prospect of conviction on the basis of the evidence they were presented with, and if so, was the public interest favouring the prosecution?

Our deskbook contains principles or considered relevant factors that must be taken into account in the application of both those principles. They applied those principles and made their decision to consent to the prosecution.

Subsequently, additional information was brought to their attention. Under the principles that guide their work, they are required to apply those principles on a continuing basis. So they examined this new information, and given this new information, they decided that there was no longer a reasonable prospect of conviction, and they introduced a stay of proceedings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you.

Now I'll go to the issue of the actual interpretation of subsection 117(3), I believe it is, and its conformity with the assurances the former Minister of Immigration, Elinor Caplan--at that time it was Citizenship and Immigration--made to Parliament through the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, that, in fact, that section would not capture human rights activists or good Samaritans who were doing a human rights duty in assisting people in need. First, has the Director of Public Prosecutions issued a directive interpreting that act in conformity with that?

Second--you may not be in a position to answer this second question, but I still would like it on the record--now that criminal charges have been laid against Ms. Janet Hinshaw-Thomas and have been dropped, will she have any difficulty entering Canada? Will our border services stop her because there were criminal charges laid against her at one point?

[Brian Saunders]

I'm not really in a position to answer that. I wouldn't characterize the charges that were laid against her as criminal charges. These were charges laid pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which is--

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I mean penal charges--she would have been liable to possible imprisonment, etc.

[Brian Saunders]

Yes, that's clear. But all regulatory offences contain consequences in terms of fines or imprisonment.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

No, penal. Thank you for correcting my inaccurate terminology.

[Brian Saunders]

In relation to your first question, on whether I have issued a directive or a clarification, no, I have not.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

And why not?

[Brian Saunders]

I guess in my mind the prosecutors fulfilled their responsibility. They applied the principles set out in the deskbook. They were brought a case by the investigative agency, the Canada Border Services Agency, and asked to apply the principles that all prosecutors apply, and they did their job.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Your time is up, Madam Jennings.

For Ms. Jennings to obtain that information, would there not be a hearing officer somewhere or another source for her to go to, or is it through the public prosecutions office?

[Brian Saunders]

In relation to Ms. Jennings' second question, I would think that would be a question that would be asked of the Canada Border Services Agency.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you.

Mr. Ménard, on a point of order.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Would it be possible to obtain a copy of the deskbook referred to so that all committee members can know the criteria? Could we have it sent to the clerk in both languages?

[Brian Saunders]

The deskbook is available on our Web site.