Evidence of meeting #5 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was million.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
You've alluded to the charging standard, Mr. Dolhai. I wasn't quite clear on what you said. In British Columbia, there's a fairly stringent standard. There has to be a substantial likelihood of conviction as well as the public interest part.
How does it work at the DPP level? What charging standard do you apply?
Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Prosecution Service of Canada
We use a reasonable prospect of conviction and that the prosecution serves the public interest. There are variations, slight variations, between jurisdictions, but all of the prosecuting authorities across the country do the two-step model: is there enough admissible evidence to meet a threshold, and would a conviction be in the public interest? British Columbia does have a different standard. As well, all of them have a public interest component.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Is it for you to decide under the DPP Act what standard you are going to use for charging? That would be province by province, would it not? How does that work?
Director of Public Prosecutions, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Prosecution Service of Canada
No, the standard is not set by statute.
Director of Public Prosecutions, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Prosecution Service of Canada
All prosecution services have what is called a decision to prosecute standard. It's part of our role as prosecutors. We're supposed to exercise our role independently of the police forces, and review files and decide whether a file is worth proceeding with before the courts.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
In the province of British Columbia where I live, we have the DPP standard, which is reasonable prospect, and we have the provincial AG standard, which is a substantial likelihood of conviction, which is a substantially higher standard. I wonder if that gives rise to any issues.
Director of Public Prosecutions, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Prosecution Service of Canada
In British Columbia you have two standards. You have the substantial likelihood of conviction, but I think in cases where that standard is not met but the public interest is high, they will go down to a reasonable prospect of conviction. Provincial people use a double standard, and I'm not using that in a pejorative sense.
Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Prosecution Service of Canada
Yes, and we have not encountered in any jurisdiction an issue with respect to any nuance between—and really they are nuances—between the prosecution tests. In fact, we have arrangements with all of the provinces—we call them major or minor—whereby whoever has the major case will do the case and the minor charges they'll do as well, as the agent for the other jurisdiction, and vice versa.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Right. Thank you.
I have to change the topic because of the short amount of time I have.
In October 2014, the so-called Fair Elections Act transferred the office of the commissioner of Canada Elections from Elections Canada to the office of the DPP. In the 2016-17 estimates, do they provide for increased resources as a result of the transfer? How has that transfer of jurisdiction affected your office, if at all?
Director of Public Prosecutions, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Prosecution Service of Canada
It resulted in a transfer of 20 full-time equivalents, 20 employees of the commissioner's office to our organization. The commissioner's budget was transferred to our organization, and that's in the range of $4 million a year. The law provided that the DPP has the right to appoint or dismiss the commissioner for cause. It also provided that the commissioner is a deputy head, in other words, the same rank as me when it comes to labour relations and staffing within his office. It didn't cost us any additional money.
One change was that the commissioner moved from being co-located with the Chief Electoral Officer to a different office in Hull, but apart from that, the operation has proceeded as it did before.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Has there been any study of increased efficiencies or lack thereof as a consequence?
Director of Public Prosecutions, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Prosecution Service of Canada
No, there has not, to date. The transfer occurred in October 2014.
We run the finances for the commissioner's office. In essence, our chief financial officer set up their financial systems. Also, his office would be subject to an audit by our internal audit section at some time in the future.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
Let me ask for a precision on Mr. Rankin's first question. You mentioned the sum of $3 million to $4 million for marijuana prosecutions. Is that for all drugs or simply for marijuana?
Director of Public Prosecutions, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Prosecution Service of Canada
That's for simple possession of marijuana.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
It's simple possession of marijuana, so it doesn't include possession of any drugs; it's just marijuana.
Director of Public Prosecutions, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Prosecution Service of Canada
That's right.
Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Prosecution Service of Canada
Let me add that none of the monies that are sought here are anticipated to be spent on those sorts of prosecutions.
In estimating what the requirement was, we focused on our highest complexity cases, because they generally have all of the elements, such as wiretap, production orders, tracking orders, and on a certain percentage of our medium complexity cases. Simple possession would be in our far low category, and that's not included in these figures.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
Again I'm going around to Liberals and Conservatives. Do you have any other questions for this panel?
No.
I'd like to thank you, gentlemen, for coming to speak with us today. It is much appreciated. I'm sure we'll be having you back on other matters in the future.
Director of Public Prosecutions, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Prosecution Service of Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to move to the votes related to the supplementary estimates, if that's okay with everyone.
JUSTICE Vote 1c—Operating expenditures..........$5,089,448 Vote 5c—Grants and contributions..........$2,300,000
(Votes 1c and 5c agreed to)
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Vote 1c—Program expenditures..........$3,972,030
(Vote 1c agreed to)
Shall I report the supplementary estimates (C) 2015-16 to the House?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much, gentlemen and ladies. This direction is much appreciated.
I think the business of the standing committee is closed.
May I have a motion to go in camera for a moment, please.
It is moved by Mr. Rankin.
(Motion agreed to)
[Proceedings continue in camera]