Justice Committee on Feb. 11th, 2009

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

And you are supposed to keep the Attorney General posted, if I can use that word, on major issues of public interest.

[Brian J. Saunders]

That's right.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Cases of public interest.

[Brian J. Saunders]

That's right.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Can you give us any examples of what cases you advised him on? I'm not asking for the advice; I just want to know what cases you have thought—

[Brian J. Saunders]

Yes, but I think that's a question of solicitor-client privilege.

What I could tell you, though—

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Do you think so?

[Brian J. Saunders]

What I could tell you, though, is what type of case would be—

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Let me ask you, why do you think that's a matter of solicitor-client privilege?

[Brian J. Saunders]

Because it's my accountability to the Attorney General, who is my—

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I beg to differ. I'm simply asking you to tell us what particular cases you've seen fit to inform the minister about. I'm not asking you for the advice.

[Brian J. Saunders]

The types of cases we would give notice on would be major regulatory prosecutions, such as if we were about to commence a prosecution against a company for an environmental spill, or if we were to commence a major prosecution against the Hells Angels—

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I appreciate that, but I'm asking you what particular cases they were. Give me the names of cases that you have actually discussed with the minister. I'm not asking to disclose the advice to us.

[Brian J. Saunders]

I can tell you that a case we have given advice on—section 13 notice on—was a case from British Columbia on the prosecution of Hells Angels.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Are there any other cases?

[Brian J. Saunders]

Of general importance would be Project Colisée in Quebec.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

And I'm assuming that when you inform the minister of these cases, the minister simply hears you out, asks you questions and gives you no direction. I'm assuming this happens.

[Brian J. Saunders]

If the Attorney General wished to give direction on a case on which he'd been informed, he would have to do so in writing and it would have to be published in Canada Gazette. To date there has not been a directive issued in respect of a particular case, so your assumption is a good one.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Dosanjh, you have about 15 seconds left. A very quick question, please.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Fifteen seconds? I'll let it go.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Monsieur Ménard

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to welcome Mr. Saunders, whom we have already had the pleasure of meeting.

I am quite in favour of the idea of having a relatively independent public prosecutor's office. Indeed, Quebec has had a great deal of success operating in this manner. There is, at the same time, this idea of reconciling public interest through the election mechanisms found in Parliament.

I would like some clarifications on the following issue. As you already mentioned, you are obligated to inform the minister of important matters pertaining to the public interest. One might think, for example, that the issue of organized crime is an important matter, but I would like to know what would happen if ever there were a divergence of opinion.

I will give you a fictional example. Any links to something real would be the work of an imagination that I do not have. Let's say that a former prime minister was being sued and that, on the basis of your expertise, you felt that legal proceedings of this type were in order but the Attorney General of Canada did not agree. Under such circumstances, how would the arbitration mechanism work and who would make the final decision?

[Brian J. Saunders]

At the outset, you must understand that we are not the ones who do the investigations. The police investigate and lay charges. So this is not the responsibility of prosecutors. Even in Quebec, where they have a system whereby the prosecutors approve charges before they are laid by the police, it is not the prosecutors who decide whether or not someone should be charged.

It must also be understood that we do not intervene in all cases where crimes or offences have been committed. In Quebec, for instance, as you know, they intervene in most cases where charges or offences have been committed under the Criminal Code. That may be the answer to this question. In the case of a former prime minister suspected of having committed a crime, if this crime is under the Criminal Code, I would suppose that, in most cases, the Quebec prosecutor's office would be involved.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

But you have skirted an important issue. You have to assess the evidence and provide justification, under federal legislation. Everyone here understands that the provinces have jurisdiction over provisions pertaining to the Code, but that it is the federal government that has responsibility for narcotics-related legislation. In this example, which I do recognize has some pedagogical virtues—and I hope that you agree with me—let's suppose that the RCMP—in this instance we are dealing with provisions requiring the participation of the federal government—conducts an investigation and you are called upon to evaluate the evidence. In this instance let's say that we are dealing with a federal government responsibility and arbitration is required. Could you oppose a decision like that, for example, if the Attorney General of Canada were to decide not to recommend legal proceedings whereas you feel that there should be? Would the Attorney General of Canada have the last word?