Justice Committee on March 23rd, 2010

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I am quite surprised, if not just angry, about all these presumptions by the champions of the separation of provincial powers. Labour law is a provincial domain, too. This was something the Ontario government was supposed to investigate. It never even happened. So why did we call our colleague in front of a committee and literally roast her in front of TV cameras when there were absolutely no grounds to accuse her?

Suddenly, to defend Mr. Rahim Jaffer, we now find all the good reasons why it shouldn't happen.

I don't know Mr. Jaffer. I have no idea what happened or did not happen, but I do believe that public confidence was eroded by the way the judgment came out. That's why I would support this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Calandra.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I'm not usually on this committee, but I have to respond to what Ms. Mendes said.

I too served on the immigration committee and was a member of the committee last fall when Ms. Dhalla was asked—or actually, volunteered—to appear before the committee.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

No, she was asked.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

We were actually studying... It wasn't a study on Ms. Dhalla; it was a study on foreign workers. In particular, we heard evidence from a number of individuals, two nannies, different temporary foreign worker groups.

We came to a report that the entire committee... I'll have to go back to check this. I believe it was a unanimous report, but I'll have to go back and check. It was not specific to Ms. Dhalla.

Actually, I just happened to be reviewing the testimony from the committee the other day—I was rewatching it on YouTube—and there were a number of important things that we spoke of. Ms. Dhalla's testimony was only a small portion of the work that was done by the committee. I know she asked that we accommodate her, so that we could...

No, it's quite true. We moved around the schedule of the immigration committee so that she could appear before us.

So I have to ask Ms. Mendes, through you, Chair, to go back and reflect on the good work that the immigration committee did. Don't try to compare this particular motion of Mr. Comartin with any of the extraordinary work that the immigration committee did. She was part of that committee; she was part of the report. I don't recall how she voted. It was predominantly a report on how we change and make things better for temporary foreign workers, for nannies. It was a really good report.

You say it wasn't unanimous; I think it was. But I think it's completely wrong to be trying to bring the two in and bring in Ms. Dhalla as an example of partisanship in a committee.

I think what Mr. Dechert and Mr. Petit have said makes a heck of a lot more sense than what I'm hearing so far on the opposite side.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Dechert.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I have a point of verification in response to Ms. Mendes.

I wasn't on the immigration committee, but as I understand it, Ms. Dhalla was there to personally respond about her own actions. This motion is not asking Mr. Jaffer to appear before the committee to explain his own actions. It's asking the crown prosecutor to reveal the confidential facts of a case in which the crown prosecutor, in their professional opinion, decided there was not sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. It's completely different.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Ms. Mendes.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Just to clarify, the report was not unanimous, precisely because section 9 of that report mentioned very specifically Ms. Dhalla. Secondly, she didn't volunteer to appear in front of the committee; she was asked to appear in front of the committee.

But I will submit all of this to the committee, if you'd like to have it.

[An hon. member]

I'll leave it at this last point.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Yes, exactly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Ms. Mendes, are you finished?

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I was just making the point about the politicization of all this. It's not about Ms. Dhalla or about Mr. Jaffer; it's the facts that we are...

Yes, it is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Let Ms. Mendes finish.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Why are we talking about people specifically? We are talking about the fact—

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

It's because it's written in the motion.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Okay, I'm done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We're going on to Monsieur Lemay.

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

Mr. Chair, first, I would like to apologize for being late. I was at a meeting attended by officials from the department of international trade. It involved a file dealing with the export of lumber, which is a very important issue in my riding. I will apologize to the minister personally when I see him.

That said, I wanted to take part in the debate on this motion. I was a defence lawyer for 30 years. When a crown prosecutor decided not to lay charges, we would rarely meet with him to ask him to explain his decision. Mr. Chair, with all due respect to my colleagues who do not share my opinion, I think that the legal system needs to remain independent from the political system. And we are underscoring the importance of that independence by opposing this motion.

The way I see it, it would be very dangerous to accept this motion as it would throw into question the judicial discretion of a sworn officer of the court. And that is what is going on here. Before examining a case, crown prosecutors take an oath to protect and defend the public within the context of that case. That is a crown prosecutor's job.

As my colleague, Mr. Ménard, so eloquently articulated, it is clear to us that accepting this motion would go against the important principle of the division of powers between the judicial branch and the political one.

Here, we make decisions on amendments to the Criminal Code, we learn about the effects those amendments will have, and we seek out the opinions of those who will have to deal with the Criminal Code as amended. However, I think that if we allow ourselves to call prosecutors as witnesses in order to ask them why they interpreted certain sections in such and such a way and did not lay charges, we would be interfering. We would become the judge and the defendant.

Mr. Chair, with all due respect for opposing opinions, I think that we should vote on this motion and reject it. I understand what my colleague, Mr. Comartin, is trying to do, but I do not think this is the place for that kind of debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We have two more members who want to speak on this. We have Mr. Murphy and then Mr. Comartin, if he wishes to wind it up.

Mr. Murphy.

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

I just briefly want to say that I'm pretty persuaded by Monsieur Ménard. I'm going to change my vote on this and vote against the motion.

I think it's very important for us to remember, and we may revisit this sooner than you think, that there has been a loss of faith in the criminal justice system over this specific case. There's a perception out there. It would behoove us to perhaps at least hear from federal prosecutors, either their association or the director or the Minister of Justice—the person responsible for how these things are done. We might have a better understanding of how things happen. We might, in fact, change the code or the policies about laying out the reasons for which charges are withdrawn.

I have met many accused people who have had charges withdrawn who would like that option, because when charges are withdrawn and you're an innocent person, you'd like to have the declaration on record saying that they were withdrawn because there was no evidence, or that the fault... I think it would be in everybody's interest.

So I put that marker down. I've changed my vote. I'm very persuaded by Monsieur Ménard and other speakers.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Comartin.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Let me say first of all, particularly to the Conservatives, and this is not partisan on my part—Mr. Dechert, listen to me—if you had followed the position I took on the Cadman affair, when a similar motion was brought forward, and supported by both the Liberals and the Bloc at that time, I took the opposite position because that was going to put this committee in a position to conduct a criminal investigation. That was the only way you could describe that. And I stood by that position, I supported your chair at the time and the position he took. If I was partisan at all on these issues, I would have taken the opposite position at that time.

With regard to the comments about Svend Robinson, I think that's quite frankly below you. If you understood that case, the charge against him was the charge that he pleaded guilty to. There was no suggestion in the country that he was treated favourably at all.

Let me finish with the point that Mr. Lemay made in his comments, and the ones Mr. Ménard made as well.

I understand the implications here of crossing that line, in terms of the sovereignty, the autonomy, of the provinces in the administration of justice. I think I've set out sufficient reasons to say it doesn't exclusively apply here and that we should take that risk because of the notoriety of the case and the undermining of credibility and the integrity of the system in the public's mind, but I want to make this final point.

Mr. Lemay points out—and, again, I don't think, Mr. Dechert, you caught this—this isn't an issue of presumption of innocence, and there are rare cases when prosecutors, sometimes the attorneys general on their behalf, do come forward in circumstances like this and give explanations. This is not completely unheard of. It's rare, I admit that, but this is one of the circumstances where that rarity should be applied, and we should do it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I'll call the question on the motion.

(Motion negatived)

We'll just take a brief moment to recess so that we can go in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]