Justice Committee on Nov. 7th, 2018

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Not to belabour it, but I have a last question. You have a situation—and what you're proposing makes perfect sense—where the corporation is subject to a DPA. It's left confidential; no one knows about it, but the judge has agreed that the necessity standard has been met. You then go after the individual directors. At some point, they either are or aren't found guilty and disposed of accordingly.

I need assurance that at that point we will know the whole story. Can you conceive of a situation where we would never know the disposition of those subsequent prosecutions against the individual directors?

[Mark Scrivens]

I cannot conceive of such a situation, because the necessity standard would always apply. Anyone, including a member of the media, can bring an application to review this order. Any judge ruling on the extension or prolongation of such an order would have to assess whether it continues to be necessary. They would have to hear evidence, say after six months or a year, that the investigation is ongoing or has concluded or whatever, and make their assessment. Contextually, it's my view that the scenario where it would go on forever and be forgotten is impossible.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Excellent. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Are there questions from anybody on this side?

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I'd like to thank the officials for being here. I was going to put forward a motion—

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Can I ask one question? It's just intellectual curiosity based on Mr. Rankin's questions. I'm totally supportive of the amendments.

In a hypothetical scenario, I guess it wouldn't be when a current director is also prosecutable, because a current director would find out as soon as the corporation was notified of an action against it, and there would be ongoing discussions that would involve or implicate the directors. I could see it if it were the case of a past director or a past employee.

I would hazard a guess that this would be used in the event, for example, there were a Canadian company acting as an agent for a large U.S. multinational and that large multinational was violating the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Canadian agent, at the behest of the U.S. company, was out there offering bribes to foreign government officials in violation of both Canadian and American law, but it was a small player acting at the behest of a large company.

In order to assist the U.S. in its prosecution of the larger company, we may want to settle with the smaller Canadian company without letting the large U.S. multinational know that we were seeking to go after it, or that the U.S. was. In co-operation with U.S. authorities we might say, “Let's not let them know about it until the U.S. can finish its investigation.” Is that not why we would do that?

[Mark Scrivens]

I hadn't thought of that, but it might be a scenario that would apply, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

That was just out of curiosity.

Mr. Fraser, you had a motion.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thanks very much for being here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Yes, thank you again, to both gentlemen. It's been very helpful

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I would move:

That, in relation to the study of the subject matter of clause 686 (Part 4, Division 20) of Bill C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, the Committee does not send recommendations to the Standing Committee on Finance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Would you be able to add that the chair so advise the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, by letter, of that conclusion?

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Yes, please add that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you.

I call will the vote.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you very much. I will sign a letter to the finance committee letting them know that we have no comments.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Before we move to an in camera meeting related to the continuation of the review of our report on trafficking, I would like to advise the committee that your subcommittee met yesterday to discuss the business of the committee, and agreed to make the following recommendations. The clerk wrote it up, and I have it right here:

That for the study of Bill C-78, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, the Committee invite to appear the witnesses suggested by the parties, as well as the organizations that requested to appear

—that is, if somebody offered to appear on behalf of an organization or a group, they would also be invited—

provided that, should an additional meeting of testimony be required, it can be added at the Chair's discretion;

That is because we had agreed by motion to hold four meetings.

There's a second thing that we agreed, as follows:

That the Committee staff be instructed to select a photograph that could be used to illustrate the cover page of the eventual report on human trafficking in Canada, provided that the committee approve said photograph.

Is everyone okay with that recommendation?

(Motion agreed to)

Great, that's unanimously approved. I will sign it.

Thank you very much.

We need a short break to get set up before we go in camera for the trafficking report.

[Proceedings continue in camera]