Justice Committee on Feb. 11th, 2009

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

You've briefed him--

[Brian J. Saunders]

Yes.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

--when he's asked.

[Brian J. Saunders]

Well, the Attorney General would be hard-placed to.... We have to tell him about the cases. He wouldn't know about the cases until we told him.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

That's the end of questioning.

The next question will be from Monsieur Lemay, for five minutes.

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

I listened to you carefully, Mr. Saunders. I have a few practical questions for you.

For example, if someone in Quebec were to be prosecuted under the 1994 Migratory Birds Convention Act, which is a federal law, the Attorney General of Quebec would be the one to initiate proceedings, if this person were to challenge the constitutionality of certain sections. For example, let's say that the person claimed to be an Indian and had hunting rights—I don't have to talk to you about Supreme Court jurisprudence—would you intervene?

[Brian J. Saunders]

If this were a lawsuit under the purview of the province of Quebec and it challenged the constitutionality of a federal piece of legislation, generally speaking, the Attorney General of Canada, with the Department of Justice, would intervene.

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

I read your CV which, by the way, is quite impressive. The ratio decidendi is constantly increasing, so long as the case is not before the Supreme Court. It does happen from time to time that the decisions rendered by the appellate courts in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia are different.

As the director, will you provide your attorneys with instructions as to which cases must be brought to the Supreme Court?

[Brian J. Saunders]

If they are cases that come under our jurisdiction—

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

I am referring to matters under your jurisdiction.

[Brian J. Saunders]

All right. We have struck a committee that sits on a regular basis to review similar cases and to provide guidelines to the directors regarding the decision to appeal cases.

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

Who are the members of this committee?

[Brian J. Saunders]

These are experienced lawyers from our organization who come from all regions of Canada.

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

If a case pertained to Quebec, Ontario or British Columbia, would these lawyers come from these three provinces or is this really a committee comprising—

[Brian J. Saunders]

The committee is composed of members coming from all jurisdictions in Canada.

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

Fine.

[Brian J. Saunders]

For example, if the Quebec Court of Appeal and the British Columbia Court of Appeal made different rulings about a given case, this committee must make recommendations to the director about whether or not it is necessary to appeal and about the position that he must take before the Supreme Court.

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

So you're the one who intervenes, as the last resort, as the Attorney General.

[Brian J. Saunders]

Yes.

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

With respect to aboriginal files, files that are tremendously sensitive, who has the final word? These files are part of your jurisdiction. Whether the case takes place in Kelowna, Caledonia or elsewhere, who has the last word, who can suggest that the matter not be pursued because of certain risks?

[Brian J. Saunders]

In cases such as these, we, as the prosecutors, make the final decision. We can consult lawyers who are experts in aboriginal matters. Such cases often involve lawsuits with damages and civil litigation that often raise the very same aboriginal rights issues that are raised in criminal prosecution.

In such cases, we can consult, but in the final analysis, according to the procedural guide that the Attorney General has asked us to follow, it is clearly stipulated that the prosecutors are the ones responsible for deciding to conduct a prosecution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Lemay, your time is up.

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

Already?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We are moving on to Monsieur Petit.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will continue on the same topic.

Good afternoon, Mr. Saunders. I am pleased to see you testifying before us. For about the past eight months or so, we have been waiting for your testimony. Meanwhile, a few incidents have occurred.

I would like to discuss the following issue, which I will try to summarize briefly. I come from the province of Quebec. As you said, the way that the Criminal Code is administered is sometimes different. For example, the police conducts investigations in Quebec, but it is the attorney assigned to the file who authorizes the prosecution. The procedure is a bit different in Ontario.

As far as drugs are concerned, the federal government has delegated power to the provinces. In some instances, private attorneys conduct drug prosecutions. In certain provinces, this does not happen. It is the provincial attorneys who do this.

I would like to ask a very specific question and I would ask that you answer it only if you can. Your attorneys are supposed to accompany ours or those individuals in charge of administering the Criminal Code in the case of economic crimes. For example, you know what happened in the case of Vincent Lacroix. In Quebec, this was a serious economic crime.

How do your lawyers intervene and provide advice? The crime may occur in several provinces. Are you able to explain what your role is? I am under the impression that the criminal prosecution service did not intervene in this file.