Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 9 - Evidence - Meeting of April 9, 2008
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 9, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 6:22 p.m. to examine the Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2009. Topic: Implementation of the Federal Accountability Act
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
My name is Joseph Day and I represent the Province of New Brunswick. I am also chairman of this committee.
[English]
The committee's field of interest is government spending and operations, including reviewing the activities of officers of Parliament and those various individuals and groups that help parliamentarians to hold the government to account. We do this through estimates of expenditures and funds made available to officers of Parliament to perform their functions and through budget implementation acts and other matters referred to this committee by the Senate.
Today we continue our examination of positions and offices created or modified as a result of the implementation of the Federal Accountability Act, which was known publicly as Bill C-2.
This evening I am pleased to welcome Mr. Brian Saunders, Acting Director of Public Prosecutions with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. He has held this position since December 12, 2006, when Part 3 of the Federal Accountability Act came into force establishing the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Before assuming these duties, Mr. Saunders held various positions within the Department of Justice, including Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Law; Acting Deputy Attorney General, Citizenship, Immigration and Public Safety; and Senior General Counsel and Director General of the Ottawa Civil Litigation Section.
Accompanying Mr. Saunders this evening from the Public Prosecution Service of Canada are Chantal Proulx, Acting Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, Regulatory Litigation and Criminal Justice Branch; George Dolhai, Acting Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, Criminal Litigation and Organized Crime Branch; and Marc Fortin, Executive Director and Corporate Counsel.
Mr. Saunders and others, thank you for being here. I understand you may have a few opening remarks, and then we can get into discussion.
Brian Saunders, Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Prosecution Service of Canada: Good evening. I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the committee in its continuing examination of new appointments arising out of the implementation of the Federal Accountability Act.
[Translation]
As you have mentioned, I have with me this evening Mr. Dolhai, Ms. Proulx and Mr. Fortin. You have referred to the fact that three of us have acting positions. When our department was set up, the four of us were the only managing officers of the Public Prosecutions Service of Canada. Fortunately for us, we have been able since then to hire new people to help us manage this department.
Before answering your questions, I would like to give you an overview of our organization, which will set up the context of the debate.
[English]
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is our legal name. The organization is more commonly known by its applied title, and that is the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.
As you know, our enabling the legislation, the Director of Public Prosecution Act, Part 3 of the Federal Accountability Act, outlines the powers, duties and responsibilities of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Our mandate is simple, and our sole strategic outcome is clear, namely, the prosecution of criminal offences within the jurisdiction of the Attorney General of Canada in a manner that is independent of any improper influence and respects the public interest.
[Translation]
As some of you may know, the creation of the new organization did not automatically lead to major changes in the work of Crown prosecutors in the various regions of Canada.
[English]
In many respects, it was business as usual on the day the PPSC was created. Crowns prosecuting federal offences on December 11, 2006, were the same ones prosecuting largely the same offences on December 12, 2006. The PPSC continued to prosecute federal offences such as drug offences and organized crime offences, regulatory offences, Criminal Code offences in our northern territories and terrorism offences.
One notable change was the addition of the offences under the Canada Elections Act. Prior to December 12, 2006, these were not prosecuted by our predecessor organization, the Federal Prosecution Service, but rather under the stewardship of the Chief Electoral Officer. Now these offences are prosecuted by our office.
The seamless operational transition was accomplished thanks to a great deal of work and planning in many areas: those who drafted the legislation, those who reviewed it, including a committee of this place, and those who worked at its implementation to make sure no cases were dropped or fell through the cracks.
I should point out that the PPSC has not become an investigating agency, as some reports have suggested. We only prosecute offences once an investigation has been conducted by an investigative agency. It is a principle that has been adopted and followed in this country that there is a distinction between investigative agencies and prosecution agencies, and that distinction has been followed in the law establishing our agency.
What changed most with the creation of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada was the enshrining in legislation of the notion of prosecutorial independence and the legislative protection for that independence. This was done not as a result, as has been the case in other jurisdictions, of a problem that had arisen at the federal level; it was done to prevent a problem from arising. Former Chief Justice Lamer testified before committee in this place to the effect that the creation of the PPSC was akin to buying fire insurance. There might not be a problem now, but it is best to have insurance in case a problem arises in the future.
It is also important to note that the principle of independence of prosecutors and their exercise of discretion has been well established in Canada for some time now and has been noted by the Supreme Court of Canada in a few cases. This means that the prosecutors, in making a decision to commence a prosecution, to continue with a prosecution, or to stay or withdraw the charges, are to be independent in the exercise of that discretion and to be guided only by principle and by law.
The Director of Public Prosecutions Act led to the creation of an independent government organization. We have tried to implement this independence in a rational and cost-effective manner. We knew we could not separate from the Department of Justice Canada overnight, so we began by focusing on those areas that in our mind were necessary to establish independence in the public's mind. We ensured that we immediately hired someone in the area of communications. We took steps to physically separate our employees from those of the Department of Justice, went to the extent of getting separate entrances for our employees, separate passes and separate signs. We also took steps to ensure that our files were kept separate from those of the Department of Justice, and access to our files was limited to people working for the PPSC.
In order to control costs, we did not move out of buildings we shared with the Department of Justice. We were usually on separate floors. We did not move out because we did not want to incur unnecessary costs. We will wait until the leases expire and then take measures to further separate us from the department.
We continue to share some transactional types of services with the Department of Justice. These are services in our view that do not reflect on our independence in the exercise of our prosecutorial discretion. Most of these services will be phased out gradually, but we did not have the capacity on December 12, 2006, to take over these transactions ourselves.
Before passage of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, the Attorney General could exercise power in respect of prosecutions. Under the act, the Attorney General retains this power. However, if the Attorney General wishes or chooses to issue a directive in respect of a particular prosecution or in respect of prosecutions generally, or if the Attorney General wishes to assume conduct of a prosecution, he must do so in a public and transparent fashion. He must do so in writing, and that directive or the assumption of prosecution is then published in the Canada Gazette for all to see. There is therefore a public record of every occasion that the Attorney General is involved in decision making in respect of a prosecution.
I can tell honourable senators that since the creation of the PPSC on December 12, 2006, the Attorney General has issued and gazetted one directive and three assignments to our organization. All four of these communications appear on our Internet site. They deal with process and governance issues only. The Attorney General has not yet issued a directive in respect of a particular prosecution, nor has he chosen to assume conduct of any prosecution.
[Translation]
As far as communications with the Attorney General are concerned, section 13 of the Act states that the Director must inform the Attorney General in a timely manner of any prosecution, or intervention that the Director intends to make, that raises important questions of general interest. To date, we have sent about 20 notices under section 13 of the act.
[English]
We have had no problem with this system that is in place, and the feedback we have received so far has been positive. We continue to work independently, with transparency and accountability as more than just buzzwords. They guide our thinking, planning, decisions and actions.
After only a few months in existence, we produced our first annual report and are currently working on the one that captures our first full year of operation. We have also produced two reports on plans and priorities, and my colleagues and I have appeared three times before House committees examining our estimates. We have published a website and have been proactively disclosing contracts, spending, travel, hospitality and job reclassifications ever since.
As you can see, our first year has been a busy one. The years ahead promise to be even more so, and we continue to represent the federal Crown in court and evolve as an independent organization.
I would be happy to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Saunders. We appreciate your opening comments.
Senator Murray: Mr. Saunders, do you have a regular meeting time with the Attorney General of Canada?
Mr. Saunders: No.
Senator Murray: Do you see him frequently, occasionally, never? How often do you meet with the minister?
Mr. Saunders: We do not have a regular meeting schedule. I see him from time to time. With respect to the present minister, Mr. Nicholson, I have seen him perhaps three or four times.
Senator Murray: I do not want for a moment to impinge on the necessary confidentiality of those discussions, but in a general way, could you tell me whether those meetings are about general policy matters or about specific cases?
Mr. Saunders: When it comes to specific cases, our regular method of proceeding is to provide a notice in writing pursuant to section 13 of our statute. That section requires us to give him notice of any cases that raise issues of general importance and to send that to him.
Senator Murray: Can you better define matters of general public interest? What was the phrase you used?
Mr. Saunders: Questions of general interest. They would be cases giving rise to issues that are important from a legal point of view, which, by their nature, are important because of the offences involved. Those would be two general categories —
Senator Murray: Would they be questions that might lead to further appeals?
Mr. Saunders: For example, a constitutional challenge to a law being raised in a prosecution that we are undertaking would be something we would bring to his attention.
Senator Murray: Do you hear from or are you in touch with the minister's personal staff frequently or at all?
Mr. Saunders: We used to meet with them approximately twice a month. It has not happened in the last few months, but we see his staff more than we would see him, and the reason is we talk about administrative issues.
Senator Murray: That is fair enough.
Let me flag a concern that I have had for some considerable time, and that is the involvement of ministerial staff — who, as we know, are political staff — in criminal files that are properly before the department, and the dangers of such involvement. I believe it is dangerous to disclose to political staff of ministers, unless there is a good or urgent reason to do so, matters that are under consideration by the department in regard to criminal cases. It has happened in the past, and that is why I flag this concern. A special effort has to be made to ensure that information on these matters is very closely held.
Mr. Saunders: We have indicated to political staff that when it comes to issues that go to the core of prosecutorial discretion, we will not discuss those with them. They will be only discussed with the Attorney General.
Senator Murray: I think you partly answered the question I intended to ask about what real difference there is between your service and the former federal prosecution service. You said it was business as usual on the day you were created, but the main difference is enshrining in legislation the notion of prosecutorial independence and legislative protection for that independence.
Our notes say that you employ approximately 900 full-time employees, including 500 prosecutors, and you retain more than 810 private sector lawyers across the country. Can you tell me whether the private sector lawyers concentrate on particular offences and the full-time prosecutors on other parts of the criminal law?
Mr. Saunders: When we hire private sector lawyers, we have to cover the courts across the country. We have regional offices in eleven cities and sub-offices in five others. We are not close to the courts in some parts of this country, so we would naturally hire an agent in those areas because it is more cost effective than to open up an office in every little town. We also hire agents where our staff employees cannot handle the file because there is too much work in a particular city.
Senator Murray: When you talk about private sector lawyers as agents, I assume these people are in private practice.
Mr. Saunders: Yes, they are.
Senator Murray: They take particular files from you at particular times. Are they designated agents?
Mr. Saunders: Yes. Under our statute, subsection 7(2) allows us to hire prosecutors from the private sector. They are considered federal prosecutors as much as a staff employee is a federal prosecutor. Under section 9 of our statute, we receive delegations from the director giving them the power to exercise the duties of the directors in respect of the cases they have.
Senator Murray: How do you pay them?
Mr. Saunders: They are paid on an hourly basis.
Senator Murray: Is that according to the local rates?
Mr. Saunders: A tariff was fixed some years ago, and that is the tariff in place now.
Senator Murray: Are there any classes of prosecutions that you would not assign to a private sector lawyer, that you would insist on having your own employees prosecute?
Mr. Saunders: I can think of a couple categories. For example, any appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada would not be handled by an agent; it would always be done by staff counsel.
We try to keep the more sophisticated work. Although some agents already do sophisticated work, we try to do that in-house. You will find our staff counsel do the large organized crime cases. The terrorism cases are presently handled by staff counsel.
Senator Murray: In regard to a previous question I asked about political staff, it occurred to me that I should say I have no idea who the political staff of the present minister are. I am flagging a general concern, not any particular minister of staff person.
Our notes also say that unless otherwise directed in writing by the Attorney General, the director — that is you — has the power to make binding and final decisions to prosecute offences under federal statutes. Do the police have to get your permission or the permission of your agent before laying a charge? I notice in your opening statement that your agency prosecutes only once a charge has been laid by an investigative or law enforcement agency.
Mr. Saunders: There is no provision in the Criminal Code requiring police to receive pre-charge approval before laying a charge. That said, three provinces, New Brunswick, Quebec and British Columbia, have developed a practice whereby pre-charge approval is sought by law investigative agencies before charges are laid.
Senator Murray: That occurs under permission from your agency.
Mr. Saunders: Yes, or under the provincial prosecuting authorities as well. You will recall that most Criminal Code prosecutions in the provinces are conducted by provincial prosecutors.
Senator Murray: I understand that.
Mr. Saunders: We follow the same practice in those three provinces as the provincial authorities and provide pre- charge approval. That means they will come to us having completed their investigation and seek our approval to lay the charges.
In many respects, it is the same exercise that we apply in other provinces. We apply the same tests for pre-charge approval as we apply in the seven other provinces and the northern territories, where the police lay the charges and come to us. We will examine the charges and the evidence and make decisions as to whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction.
Senator Murray: I am no doubt displaying my ignorance about the operation of the criminal law system, but why would they not come to you before laying a charge?
Mr. Saunders: This was discussed in a comprehensive report by Stephen Owen in 1990 that led to the amendment of the introduction of the Crown Counsel Act. There are pros and cons for having pre-charge approval. In this country, there is a distinction between the investigative role and the prosecutorial role. Some think that by having pre-charge approval, there is interference with the investigative role because it includes not only investigation but also the police right to lay charges. In effect, it is recognized in Canada that the police have the right to decide who, what and how to investigate.
Senator Murray: The charge should not be laid unless the Crown agrees to lay the charge.
Mr. Saunders: That is not the view of some people. Seven jurisdictions have not adopted that view.
Senator Murray: Mr. Saunders, I understand the constitutional division of powers. The provinces are responsible for the administration of justice, but I am talking about charges that fall under federal offences. Is your approval required before the RCMP or whoever can lay a charge?
Mr. Saunders: In most cases, no. You will know that in the Criminal Code or other statutes certain charges require the prior approval of the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General — terrorism laws, for example. However, in most cases, no pre-charge approval is required by law.
Your question is whether we should adopt that as a practice.
Senator Murray: I think you should do so, but we will leave that there. I am a layman.
On one other matter, I do not understand the statement on your website:
. . . the Director must inform the Attorney General of any prosecution or planned intervention that may raise important questions of general interest, allowing the Attorney General the opportunity to intervene in, or assume conduct of, a case.''
Does that mean he puts on his gown and goes to court?
Mr. Saunders: No. That refers to the other powers that the Attorney General has retained under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act. The whole idea of giving the Attorney General notice has a couple of results. First, ultimately he is accountable to Parliament; and, second, he retains residual power in criminal law. He is still the chief law officer of the Crown. Those clauses found in the DPP Act of Nova Scotia and Quebec allow the Attorney General, on receiving notice of a case of public importance and seeing what role we propose to play, to issue a directive in respect of the prosecution or to take over the prosecution.
Senator Murray: What does ``take over the prosecution'' mean?
Mr. Saunders: He takes the prosecution out of the hands of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada and assigns it to counsel within the Department of Justice or to an agent retained by the Department of Justice.
Senator Murray: You would be then sidelined.
Mr. Saunders: That is right.
The power to issue a directive in respect of a particular prosecution is found in the Crown Counsel Act of British Columbia, which was introduced in 1990. Since 1990, 18 years ago, directives have been issued on five occasions, so it is used sparingly.
Senator Murray: Have you ever looked at the situation in the United Kingdom where the Attorney General is a member of cabinet and has a status apart? He does not attend cabinet except on rare occasions when he has advice to offer to ministers and so forth.
Mr. Saunders: I know generally about it, but I understand that they are currently rethinking the structure surrounding the criminal justice system.
Senator Murray: The theory was, I presume, that the system kept the Attorney General out of the grubby day-to- day political considerations that cabinets have to take on.
Mr. Saunders: Even so, long ago they adopted that the Director of Public Prosecutions reports to the Attorney General.
Senator Murray: Oh, well.
Mr. Saunders: That was on the idea that there should be some further independence.
The Chair: I have a couple of points that flowed from Senator Murray's questioning.
As I understand it, when there is a matter of general interest, the Director of Public Prosecution makes that decision and advises the minister.
Mr. Saunders: That is right.
The Chair: The minister then makes the decision to take over the prosecution. Must that be gazetted?
Mr. Saunders: Yes.
The Chair: A directive is also gazetted. What kinds of directives might he make?
Mr. Saunders: The law gives him the right to issue a directive in respect of a particular case or prosecution. The examples from British Columbia were cases where the Attorney General directed the official responsible for the public prosecution service to raise certain issues on appeal. Those were five appeal cases.
The Chair: I see.
Mr. Saunders: For example, the prosecution service might decide not to appeal a case and the Attorney General might decide it is in the public interest to appeal, so he would give such a directive.
There is also the power in our statute for the Attorney General to issue a directive in respect of prosecutions generally. The one directive that has been issued respects prosecutions generally. The Attorney General has directed us to continue using the Federal Prosecution Service Deskbook. It is a statement of principles and guidelines for prosecutors when they exercise their discretion in various circumstances. It is publicly available and is on our Internet site. We use it as a means to achieve public accountability. People can see what guides our discretion when we exercise it, and they can hold us accountable.
The Chair: Has this been in place since the new act came into being?
Mr. Saunders: The Federal Prosecution Service Deskbook was put in place in 1993, I believe.
The Chair: The directive that you described has been in place since December 12, 2006.
Mr. Saunders: Yes, it was in March 2007, I believe.
The Chair: Who lays the charge before you pick up the prosecution? I notice that one of the core responsibilities is initiating and conducting federal prosecutions. Surely ``initiating'' means laying the charge.
Mr. Saunders: No. Initiating the prosecution can be and has been interpreted as meaning ``taking the prosecution once the charges have been laid.''
The Chair: Why do you need the word ``initiating'' separate from ``conducting?''
Mr. Saunders: That was designed to cover the situation. The act was not intended to change the situation that existed before. Before the act came into place, there was the power of the FPS — our predecessor — engaged in pre- charge approval in three provinces. It followed the lead of the prosecution services of other provinces and would review the cases once charges had been laid. Using that language was designed to capture both situations. It was not designed to change what the FPS was doing for our organization.
The Chair: Did subsection 3(3) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act exist in previous legislation?
Mr. Saunders: There was no previous legislation of this nature.
The Chair: This is new wording.
Mr. Saunders: The legislation is new at the federal level.
The Chair: Bill C-2 provided that the Director of Public Prosecution has a core function of initiating and conducting federal prosecutions. That is new wording under Bill C-2, which when passed became the Federal Accountability Act.
Mr. Saunders: Yes. Ms. Proulx can help us with this because she was involved in the drafting of the legislation.
Chantal Proulx, Acting Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, Regulatory Litigation and Criminal Justice Branch, Public Prosecution Service of Canada: The question of the meaning to be assigned to the word ``initiates'' arose during the proceedings leading to the passage of the bill, notably in this chamber before the Legal Committee. The question posed to the then Minister of Justice Toews was whether the use of the word ``initiates'' signalled some kind of constitutional change between the police and the Crown attorney responsibilities.
The wording used in the statute was required to enable the director to initiate proceedings in those cases where a consent is required. It is also wording that, despite its use and despite what may appear to signal a change, does not signal any change in the manner in which proceedings are conducted or were in the past prior to the passage of the bill.
In other words, in those jurisdictions, as Mr. Saunders described, where pre-charge approval was not in place, where the police laid the charge, brought the brief to the Crown, and the Crown then decided whether the prosecution ought to continue by attending court on a first appearance, which is also an initiation of proceedings, that practice was not changed by the bill.
The Chair: That was the opinion that Mr. Toews had prior to the bill being adopted by Parliament, and does that continue to be the view of the prosecutor's office?
Ms. Proulx: That is correct.
Senator Eggleton: Senator Murray and the chair, the lawyers, have asked all the questions already, leaving very little for me to ask at this point, but I am curious about one thing. Why do all these acting positions exist? You have been acting in your position since the legislation was proclaimed. Is there some technical reason, or is there some schedule to get out of acting?
Mr. Saunders: It has been a long rehearsal, yes.
The statute sets out a process for selecting a permanent DPP, and it is a fairly elaborate process. We are at the last step of that process. The Attorney General received a recommendation of three individuals from a committee composed of parliamentarians and deputy ministers and a few individuals from outside government. He selected one person; he nominated me from that group of three. Before a permanent DPP can be named, the final stage in the process is that I have to go before a committee of Parliament and be approved.
Senator Eggleton: Both Houses?
Mr. Saunders: That is a matter of debate.
The Chair: We tried to make that amendment, but it did not work, if you recall.
Senator De Bané: Mr. Saunders, I gather from everything you explained to us today that the injustice imposed on the former Prime Minister Mulroney in the Airbus affair would not be prevented with the creation of your office. A letter was sent by the police to a foreign government accusing a former Prime Minister of Canada of certain things. It was later proven that there was absolutely nothing there, and he suffered, of course, tremendously.
I cannot understand how the police, with a one-month course in the Criminal Code, can do things without having the guidance of people like you, Ms. Proulx and Mr. Fortin who have spent years studying criminal law. The police can do things after a one-month crash course in criminal law and accuse a former Prime Minister.
The longer I listened to you today, the more I thought that this might happen again. Am I right in saying that?
Mr. Saunders: I will give you a lengthy answer.
Under our legislation, we have the mandate to advise investigative agencies in the conduct of their investigations. We will advise agencies only where they are investigating a matter that would ultimately be prosecuted by us.
For example, if there was an investigation into a former Prime Minister — or any individual for that matter — pursuant to the Criminal Code and something we do not prosecute, the police are unlikely to come to us for legal advice. They will go to a prosecution service of the province conducting the prosecution. It is commonplace these days for police services and investigative agencies to seek advice during the course of their investigation.
I said earlier that the Public Prosecution Service of Canada does not direct investigations. We do not conduct investigations, but we do advise investigations. This has been recognized lately by the Supreme Court of Canada in a number of decisions noting that, given the complexity of the law these days and the expense associated with investigations, it only stands to reason that the police would come and seek advice from prosecutors on issues arising during the course of the investigation.
Like any client, they are free to not follow that advice, though from our perspective it would be unwise not to follow it, because if we are right and the prosecution then fails because of an error made during the course of an investigation, that is unfortunate for all parties — the accused, the police and society at large.
Senator Murray: The letter in question to which Senator De Bané refers was sent by the federal Department of Justice to the Swiss authorities.
Mr. Saunders: Yes. I note it was not sent by the group that is, I guess, the prosecutors. It is a group called International Assistance Group, which has remained with the Department of Justice. It is outside my bailiwick to be discussing the affairs of the Department of Justice. However, in answer to your question as to whether or not our service would prevent that, if the police came for advice in respect of a matter during the course of an investigation, we would do our best to make sure that they received advice that is timely, accurate and which they can act upon.
Senator De Bané: I understand your very thorough answer, Mr. Saunders. However, I think that three provinces still demand the police to show a lawyer all their investigation about the particular case and he will decide, reading their reports and knowing the jurisprudence, if there is enough evidence to prosecute someone. That makes a lot of sense.
Mr. Saunders: You have to realize that even if pre-charge approval had been in place in the jurisdiction in which the Airbus investigation was underway, it would not have necessarily remedied the situation.
Police seek pre-charge approval at the end of their investigation. They come to the prosecution service with the fruits of their investigation. They have prepared what we call a Crown brief. As I recall in the Mulroney investigation, the letter in respect of which Mr. Mulroney commenced this lawsuit was set out near the start of the investigation into the Airbus matter, not at the end of the matter.
Senator De Bané: I cannot forget that a former Deputy Minister of Justice of this country made representations that you cannot write to a former government and say, ``We have reasons to believe that a former Prime Minister has committed a crime,'' when the then-President of Air Canada said no one had intervened. I do not know how many committees studied it. All of them were of the opinion that nobody put on any pressure. As a Canadian, I found it absolutely appalling. I could not believe that we would do that to a former Prime Minister without ever talking with him.
All I want to do is reflect on that. Today, you may have people who do not want to get involved in politics because they have seen those kinds of things. I cannot imagine that things like that could happen in my own country. It broke my heart when I saw that. This is what I want to tell you.
The Chair: Any further comment on that, Mr. Saunders?
Mr. Saunders: No.
Senator Di Nino: Interspersed throughout your oral presentation and some briefing notes we have is the word ``independence.'' It appears so often that it begs my first question. Have there been problems with independence or impartiality that needed to be fixed?
Mr. Saunders: No. I think Minister Toews was clear when he appeared before a committee answering questions on the Director of Public Prosecutions Act. He did not say that there were any problems that led him to introduce this legislation. Rather, he was trying to enshrine in legislation the principle of prosecutorial independence, much along the lines of what I mentioned regarding former Chief Justice Lamer.
Senator Di Nino: I found it interesting that it was repeated several times throughout the presentation. You seemed to be focusing on it.
Mr. Saunders: To elaborate, using as an example the problem in Nova Scotia with respect to Donald Marshall, the commission of inquiry established to look into that wrongful conviction recommended the establishment of a director of public prosecutions. That was the first office in Canada.
There were problems in Australia in the 1980s and 1990s with respect to prosecutions in the criminal justice system. They used special prosecutors for a while who recommended that a public prosecutions service be established, and that was the case in all the states of Australia.
It has become somewhat of a trend. Quebec has recently adopted a director of criminal and penal prosecutions. In the writings of academics, the late Professor John Edwards, who was the leading expert on the role of the Attorney General and law officers of the Crown, wrote a paper in which he noted the trend of the establishment of offices of directors of public prosecutions. He did not think it would be too long before every province adopted that system for protecting prosecutorial independence.
Senator Di Nino: Continuing in that vein, I believe you talked about separate buildings in the future. Is that in the works?
Mr. Saunders: Yes. In most locations, we are co-located with the Department of Justice, which stands to reason as we were once a branch of the Department of Justice.
We are typically on separate floors, so are able to have a physical separation of our employees from the Department of Justice. We wanted to do it in a cost-effective manner and not break leases, so we put in separate doors and signs in order that there is not a free flow of people back and forth. In certain locations, leases have come up. In Winnipeg, for example, our office is moving to a separate location.
In the northern territories, the Department of Justice had a very small presence, apart from the prosecution service, and we took over all the buildings in those locations.
Headquarters is a bit of a difficult problem in that there is very little space available in Ottawa for new government organizations, so for the time being we share part of the East Memorial Building with the Department of Justice, albeit with a separate entrance.
Senator Di Nino: If there are any builders listening to this, that is a signal to them.
Mr. Saunders: I recommend that they contact the Department of Public Works.
Senator Di Nino: I totally agree.
My question in that area has more to do with systems than the actual physical locations. Will your computer systems, et cetera, be totally separate, or will they be connected?
Mr. Saunders: We have our own server for certain uses. We used to share a knowledge management system called iCase, and one of our first steps was to ensure that we would not have access to Department of Justice files and they, likewise, would not have access to ours.
We have also tried to separate the hard copies of our files so that we do not have access to theirs and they do not have access to ours. As we move into the separate premises, that will be easier to do.
We still rely upon the Department of Justice for our computer systems. We think we can make the separation I just described. To set up our own computer systems and information technology would cost a fortune. We are looking for technical solutions to this as opposed to spending that money.
Senator Di Nino: I want to flag that because I would be much more concerned about that than about separate buildings.
Is it correct that you report to Parliament through the Attorney General's office?
Mr. Saunders: Yes. Section 16 of our statute requires that we file an annual report setting out our activities.
Senator Di Nino: You report to Parliament by filing this with the Attorney General who then has an obligation to table it in both Houses?
Mr. Saunders: It says ''to Parliament,'' so I assume that means both Houses.
Senator Di Nino: I wanted clarification on that point.
There is no prohibition to you appearing before committees of both Houses as requested.
Mr. Saunders: No.
Senator Di Nino: I would like you to comment on what your relationship is with the different jurisdictions and how that works. Does it assist or impede?
Mr. Saunders: There are various aspects to our relationship with provincial prosecution services. At the highest level, for some years we have had the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Heads of Prosecutions Committee, which meets twice a year and is in contact through the year to discuss issues of common interest.
One issue we discuss is coordination, where issues do arise. It is an operationally focused committee composed of the director of public prosecutions for Nova Scotia, the director of prosecutions for Quebec and the assistant deputy minister responsible for prosecutions for the various provinces. There is no politicking. Its purpose is to determine how to best resolve problems in the interests of the criminal justice system.
We also have arrangements with the provinces on a more daily basis with respect to conducting some of their prosecutions, and they conduct some of ours.
Often individuals are charged with offences that fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces as well as with offences that fall within our jurisdictions. For example, someone may be charged with gun offences and also be found in possession of cocaine or heroin.
The question is: What is the most economical way of conducting those prosecutions? We have entered into what we call major-minor agreements. If the major offence with which an individual is charged falls within the responsibility of the federal prosecution service, we let that prosecution service conduct the entire prosecution. Similarly, if in a particular case a drug charge is the minor charge and the person is charged with a serious Criminal Code offence, the province will conduct the prosecution of both offences. These arrangements work out very well.
Senator Di Nino: Do you anticipate any turf wars?
George Dolhai, Acting Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, Criminal Litigation and Organized Crime Branch, Public Prosecution Service of Canada: We do not. In fact, the degree of cooperation through the heads of prosecution also leads to situations where one prosecution service may ask another, be it federal or provincial, to undertake a prosecution because of a conflict of interest or a perception of a conflict interest, and/or ask for an opinion on a particular prosecution.
Mr. Saunders: We sometimes undertake joint prosecutions. We had a prosecution in Manitoba involving organized crime for which we and the province provided prosecutors. That helps, especially in smaller jurisdictions.
Senator Di Nino: My question was driven by the fact that too often agencies, some law enforcement and some not, do not talk to each other and things fall through the cracks. I am glad to hear that you people are working together.
Ms. Proulx: To clarify the question on the tabling of the annual report, I checked the provision. Subsection 16(2) of the act says that the report is tabled before both Houses.
The Chair: Thank you for your quick reaction to that question. It leaves us all feeling a little warmer and fuzzier.
It would be helpful, Mr. Saunders, if you could let honourable senators understand what matters would be handled by a provincial prosecution that are of a federal nature. Is it just the Criminal Code, and then other items, such as federal fisheries or federal immigration matters, would be handled by you in a province?
Mr. Saunders: Let us leave the Criminal Code aside for the moment. Any offence under a federal statute other than the Criminal Code would be prosecuted by a member of our prosecution service; so the Fisheries Act would be prosecuted by us.
Turning to the Criminal Code, in the northern territories we conduct all Criminal Code prosecutions. In the provinces, we conduct only certain Criminal Code prosecutions, and that arises from the definition of ``Attorney General'' in the Criminal Code, which gives us concurrent jurisdiction over a number of Criminal Code offences. We have an understanding with the provinces which ones we will conduct and which they will conduct.
For example, we have jurisdiction with the provinces to conduct prosecutions under the fraud provisions of the Criminal Code, sections 380 and 382. The understanding we have with the provinces is that they have a right of first refusal. Typically, they will exercise that right. If they have a conflict regarding the individuals who are prosecuted, they will ask us to prosecute along the arrangements Mr. Dolhai mentioned.
Another area of shared or concurrent jurisdiction with the provinces is terrorism cases. To date, leaving aside Air India, we have done the prosecutions under the terrorism provisions of the Criminal Code.
The Chair: Would overcharging on an advertising contract in Quebec be a fraud? Was there an exercise of jurisdiction by the Quebec prosecution authority in relation to the sponsorship situation?
Mr. Saunders: I do not recall whether the charge was under section 380 of the Criminal Code or section 121. If it was section 380, it typically would have been done as it was done, by a provincial prosecution service — in that case, the Quebec prosecution service.
The Chair: Would this change in the law affect that kind of situation?
Mr. Saunders: No. As part of the Federal Accountability Act, the Financial Administration Act was amended in section 80 and I believe section 151, which increased the penalties for fraud committed, in the case of section 80, by federal employees against the Crown; and in section 151, if I have the number right, by officers of the Crown — employees of Crown corporations — against Crown corporations.
If an investigation were to be undertaken and the police were to lay charges under those provisions, we would be the ones called upon to prosecute.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: My first question has been raised by Senator Di Nino. I share his comments relating to the information systems and the need to monitor closely the data you still share with the systems of the Department of Justice.
Mr. Saunders: The system as being a solo set up that people working for the Department of Justice do not have access to our files and we do not have access to theirs.
Senator Chaput: My second question is on official languages. Since you are an independent organization, do you come under the Official Languages Act? If so, what services do you provide in French?
Mr. Saunders: This is a good question because I have with me Ms. Proulx, the official languages champion in the department.
Ms. Proulx: Indeed, we come under the Official Languages Act and we share several initiatives with the Department of Justice. Very recently, we participated with the Department of Justice in a series of events organized during the Semaine de la francophonie here in Ottawa and elsewhere. We provide all our services in French. We have some obligations under the code and other pieces of legislation under which we must allow any accused person to be prosecuted in the language of his or her choice. We are fully able to provide those services and we do. We have Crown prosecutors able to conduct trials in both official languages.
Senator Chaput: Are your website and your communications in both official languages?
Ms. Proulx: All of our communications are in both official languages.
[English]
Senator Stratton: My question relates to Senator Chaput's. Have you had cases in remote areas where services in the other official language have been requested — for example, French? How do you service those requests? Do you bring people in to handle them?
Ms. Proulx: That would depend on the location and on the services that currently exist where the trial or the offence was to have taken place.
Certainly, we would marshal our resources to ensure that the services are available in the location where they are needed. Any adjustments would depend on where and in what circumstances the events took place.
Senator Stratton: If someone of francophone descent wanted the case handled in the language of his or her choice, that would the case; is that right?
Ms. Proulx: Yes. We would assign staff counsel to do the case if they are available. If there are no staff Crowns, we would look at possibly retaining a Crown agent to do the case. We would marshal our resources to ensure that whatever request was made, we would be able to comply with it.
Senator Stratton: There is something called a ``phased transition'' in your annual report of 2007. I know Senator Day will be looking for this and I am trying to get out ahead of him. Phase 1 took place prior to December 12, 2006, and phase 2 started on December 12, 2006, and ended March 31, 2007.
The third phase, from March 31, 2007, onwards, will see the PPSC develop its corporate services model. We have a start date; do we have an end date, give or take? As in other instances, we are negotiating.
Mr. Saunders: When we first got together as a foursome to think about what we had to do to set up a new organization, knowing that the regional office was working well, we thought it could be done fairly quickly. God created the world in seven days, but he did not have to contend with Treasury Board policies, which slowed us down more than we anticipated, not to mention parliamentary committees.
We have made great strides in setting up the organization. I mentioned how, when we started, the headquarters staff was composed of the four of us. One of our first priorities was hiring someone to be in charge of human resources — because without that person, you will not hire anyone else — and then finance. Recently, we hired a chief information officer. With that, we were able to start a snowball effect of letting them hire the staff they need so we can operate independently.
Another key objective early on was to set up a governance structure. That is where Mr. Fortin has a certain expertise, and he was able to guide us through that process as we set up a structure so people knew where they stood in the organization, knew what they were responsible for and what we would hold them accountable for. That has been largely established.
We are now going through the organizational design. We are looking at each position in the organization to ensure it has a proper job description and to make sure that the lines of authority are known both by the individual and that person's supervisor.
Following that, we have to determine the best way of delivering our corporate services in the regional offices. You can set up a regional structure where each regional office is run as a separate fiefdom or have a more centralized approach, which is what we are opting for. It is something we will be discussing within the next months and implementing, we hope, before the end of this year.
Senator Stratton: Is your target for the completion of this phase the end of this year?
Mr. Saunders: As long as you call it a target and not a deadline, that is correct. Our target would be even sooner than that, but we have to be realistic.
We have looked at other organizations that have been established recently, such as the Canada Border Services Agency. We know that after three or four years there will still be growing pains. We anticipate having those pains a few years from now, but we hope to have most of the work done by the end of this fiscal year. That is a fair goal.
Senator Stratton: You know that we will be watching.
Senator Ringuette: I am looking at your chart on page 6. First, I want to ask you a very naive question. I have no legal background whatsoever, but I see two headings. One is for regulatory litigation in criminal justice, and the other one is for criminal litigation and organized crime. What is the difference? Organized crime and criminal justice are similar, but why would regulatory litigation be separate?
Mr. Saunders: We are required by Treasury Board to establish a program activity architecture, which describes the various activities that our department undertakes.
In our program activity architecture, we identify as our first activity the prosecution of drugs; organized crime, which is typically related to drugs; and Criminal Code offences, which, as I explained, is done in our northern territories. Mr. Dolhai has taken responsibility for overseeing that program activity.
Our second major program activity are regulatory offences. Those are offences under federal statutes apart from the Criminal Code. Those would be Fisheries Act, Environmental Protection Act, Income Tax Act and Competition Act prosecutions, and they fall under the responsibility of Ms. Proulx.
The diagram that you see at page 6 in respect of the major divisions within our organization reflects the program activity architecture that our organization has adopted.
Senator Ringuette: Under the Regulatory and Criminal Justice Branch, you have Communication, Corporate services and Ministerial Secretariat. I thought you were an independent group.
Mr. Saunders: You are looking at last year's structure. That must have been phase 1 or phase 2. We are into phase 3 now. It has changed a bit, if you look at our Report on Plans and Priorities.
Senator Ringuette: Do you still have a Ministerial Secretariat?
Mr. Saunders: Yes, we do.
Senator Ringuette: What does it do?
Ms. Proulx: The Ministerial Secretariat performs a number of functions. Despite our independence, which appears frequently and regularly in our published documents, we still liaise on a regular basis with the Attorney General's office at number of levels. One of them is with respect to section 13 briefing notes, which Mr. Saunders described earlier. Another is with respect to matters that can come up through either cabinet or parliamentary affairs. A third level is with respect to obtaining the minister's signature on documents that might be required by cabinet, such as memorandums, Treasury Board submissions, et cetera.
The Ministerial Secretariat plays a coordinating role in that exercise. It is a centre through which documents are routed that go to the Attorney General's office. There are additional documents, including correspondence. If a letter is written to the Attorney General that concerns, for instance, one of our cases, and the Attorney General thinks it appropriate for the DPP to respond, that letter will be routed down to the DPP for a response, and the Ministerial Secretariat will play the role of receiving that letter, coordinating the preparation of a response and assuring that a response is sent out.
Another role performed by the secretariat is our access to information role. As you know, we are subject to the Access to Information Act, like all other government departments. A subsection of the Ministerial Secretariat is our Access to Information Directorate, which receives and processes all access to information requests.
Senator Ringuette: Did you mention briefing notes to the minister?
Ms. Proulx: Yes. Under section 13 of the DPP Act, as Mr. Saunders described earlier, the DPP is obliged to advise the Attorney General of important matters of general interest. Typically, that takes place by way of a note sent to the Attorney General outlining the facts of the case and why the case is important. It is an information note, and those notes are sent through that secretariat as well.
Senator Ringuette: I would like to move on to the topic of staffing, which is another issue of interest to me. How many positions do you have in the current phase?
Mr. Saunders: The number mentioned at the outset was 900, but I think that figure is too high. We have some people come in for two months of the year, but they are not there for the full year, which inflates the numbers.
We calculate that we have approximately 750 employees of whom 450 are full-time prosecutors. These are spread around the country. For example, Toronto is our largest office. We have approximately 90 prosecutor positions in Toronto. We have a sub-office in Brampton and one in London.
Senator Ringuette: Would these be support staff positions?
Mr. Saunders: There are approximately 60 paralegals who assist the lawyers. Then we have the assistants or support staff.
In the North, we have Crown witness coordinators who assist witnesses called to testify in northern courts. We have a large number of people who run our Asian affairs unit as well.
Senator Ringuette: I suppose that with this new office being at phase 1, you had people moving from the Department of Justice to your unit.
Mr. Saunders: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: How many people?
Mr. Saunders: In fact, under the transitional provisions associated with our statute, almost everyone who was a member of the former Federal Prosecution Service at the Department of Justice was automatically moved to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada on December 12.
With respect to the notable exceptions, the Federal Prosecution Service used to house the International Assistance Group and lawyers who did extraditions. Those people have stayed with the Department of Justice. The thinking at the time was that it was the role of the Minister of Justice as opposed to the role of the Attorney General.
Senator Ringuette: With regard to staffing, how many additional employees did you require for your organization to be at the current phase?
Mr. Saunders: We have not completed our staffing at the headquarters level. We are finding there are many reporting requirements at the headquarters level. For example, in the area of human resources alone, there are approximately 30 reports we have to complete to central agencies, and that requires a staff of people to produce those reports. Even an annual report requires people to write them.
Mr. Fortin can correct me if I am wrong, but so far we have hired approximately 25 to 30 people at headquarters to take into account our responsibilities now that we are a separate and independent organization.
Senator Ringuette: Of those 25 to 30 new employees, were those positions advertised publicly through the Public Service Commission?
Mr. Saunders: Some were and some were people we got on deployments from other government departments. In some cases, deployment is the best way because we have an immediate need. Unfortunately, we are finding out that staffing still takes five to six months. Some of the people did come to us by deployments.
Senator Ringuette: On a temporary basis?
Mr. Saunders: No. For example, if someone is in the Department of Justice —
Senator Ringuette: In surplus?
Mr. Saunders: No, not surplus. Someone decides that they want to go to another government department, be it our organization or another organization.
Senator Ringuette: How would they know that?
Mr. Saunders: In some cases, they would know because in the Department of Justice everyone knew that we had been established. Sometimes people who were looking for a new challenge would contact us, knowing that we were looking for people in various areas.
Senator Ringuette: Would the people who are redeployed to your organization come from the Department of Justice?
Mr. Saunders: Yes, a lot come from the Department of Justice.
Senator Ringuette: Just like the prosecutors?
Mr. Saunders: The Department of Justice lost 750 people on December 12, so their headquarters staff might have said, ``Perhaps I should go because I was doing work for the Federal Prosecution Service before. I will continue working with those people.''
We recently launched a campaign for new lawyers. We have a public national advertising campaign. The advertisements were in several national newspapers. We do go public as much as we can.
The Chair: New lawyers for contract purposes?
Mr. Saunders: No, staff lawyers.
The Chair: Do you still receive from the Attorney General a list of lawyers in the different provinces who would be eligible to be your prosecutors on a contract basis?
Mr. Saunders: No. Under our legislation, private sector lawyers who are retained as agents to act as federal prosecutors are retained by us. We have a process in place where we advertise. We have a competition much like the competition for lawyers who want to join us as staff employees. We hire on the basis of competence and integrity. There is no input from the Attorney General's office whatsoever.
The Chair: If the Department of Justice hired a law firm on a regular basis to do certain legal work for the Department of Justice, would you consider it a conflict and therefore not desirable from an independence point of view for you to hire a lawyer from that same firm to be a prosecutor?
Mr. Saunders: I do not think it would necessarily be a conflict. We might want to look and see what they are doing for the Department of Justice, but our authority comes from the Attorney General, just like that of the Department of Justice. I would be hard pressed to say it is a conflict.
We do look at whether the individual in the private sector does criminal defence work. For example, if we hire someone to do drug prosecutions for us, we do not want that individual to defend people accused of drug possession.
The Chair: I mentioned conflict or the appearance of independence. You think it is very important for the prosecution service to be separate from Department of Justice here at the national office.
Mr. Saunders: That is true.
The Chair: Would an appearance of independence be as important out in the field?
Mr. Saunders: I am not able to answer that question directly because I am not certain whether any of the agents we have at present also have had or have mandates from the Department of Justice for civil matters.
The Chair: You are not certain because you have not checked?
Mr. Saunders: No, I have not checked.
The Chair: It has not been an issue?
Mr. Saunders: It has not been an issue. Typically, the agents we hire are standing agents. That does not mean they work full-time for us, but they get files. The Department of Justice tends to hire agents on an ad hoc basis to do one file. We are not usually competing for the same lawyers.
Typically, the lawyers we hire are criminal lawyers whereas the Department of Justice hires civil lawyers. We are looking at a different market of lawyers. Our lawyers are also located in smaller centres whereas the lawyers they retain typically are in the large centres and they work on larger files.
The Chair: Your earlier testimony is that here, in Ottawa, you believe that the long-term, steady state is to be located in buildings separate from one another?
Mr. Saunders: Yes.
The Chair: In order to have the appearance of independence?
Mr. Saunders: Yes. This statute was aimed to make transparent the independence of the organization. That was one of the recommendations made either by Judge Kaufman or Professor Ghiz, when he examined the Nova Scotia prosecution. In a 1993 report I think he made 35 recommendations. One of them was that it was important that the headquarters is seen as being separate. They were trying to get rid of this perception in the minds of the people of Nova Scotia that the prosecution service was, in effect, taking orders from a political individual.
Senator Eggleton: Are war crimes prosecutions part of your jurisdiction?
Mr. Saunders: Yes.
Senator Eggleton: Can you tell me what is happening there in general, not specific cases? There is the traditional, long-standing Nazi war crime situation, and then there are the more contemporary or more recent war crime prosecutions. What is happening in both those areas? Do you have staff assigned especially to that?
Mr. Saunders: We are only doing one prosecution in Montreal. For the World War II cases you are talking about, I think the government decided to proceed by way of the immigration acts and denaturalization as opposed to conducting criminal prosecutions.
Senator Eggleton: You do not carry the cases in those situations.
Mr. Saunders: Not those cases; those cases are civil cases. We will only conduct the prosecution under the war crimes and crimes against humanity statute.
Senator Eggleton: Do you have staff that are looking into these matters and are especially dedicated to these kinds of things?
Mr. Dolhai: They do not arise with tremendous frequency. For example, with respect to our current prosecution, we have a team of prosecutors who are undertaking that case. Throughout the course of that prosecution, they will continue to hone their expertise in this particular area and could be drawn upon in the future in respect of another prosecution.
The volume is not sufficient at this time to justify saying to prosecutors, ``This will to be the only thing that you work on.'' We have so much significant and complex work right now that we really need those people to be doing it.
Senator Di Nino: Your response led me to project that we probably do not have people who are skilled in this trade. It does not happen that often. Is there a group of people out there you can call on in case you need them for war crimes, crimes against humanity, et cetera? Do we have experts in this country that you can call on?
Mr. Dolhai: Yes, certainly. There is a section in the Department of Justice that assists with respect to the investigation issues, if there is a need for expertise with respect to the unique aspects of a case.
We focus on the prosecution issues. We need experts who will recognize a different type of evidence that might be called and who are in a position to conduct what will be a complex prosecution for them. In many ways, the skills one might have in respect of that sort of proceeding would be similar to the skills one would develop in a terrorism case and/or a complex organized crime case. It is the ability to marshal very complex cases.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: I have an additional question relating to your hiring process. What is your policy with regard to the need for staff to master both official languages? Have some of your positions been designated bilingual, that requirement not applying to the others? What is your policy?
Mr. Sanders: In some regions, such as Montreal, most of our lawyers are bilingual. In the others, when a bilingual lawyer is required, we look for one, certainly. At the present time, we are looking for managers for our Halifax and Winnipeg offices and the ability to speak French is required at least at the CBC level. You know the various levels used in the public service in this field.
Senator Chaput: It depends on the regions?
Mr. Saunders: Yes. We have bilingual managers in the Territories, although I do not exactly know in which ones, but it seems that the Territories attract people from Québec. Many residents come from Quebec so we have decided that our managers would have to speak French also.
Senator Chaput: What is the proportion of bilingual public servants?
Mr. Saunders: It seems that most people at our headquarters in Ottawa are bilingual but, as far as the regions are concerned, I do not have the figures with me.
Senator Chaput: Could you send them to us?
The Chair: You could send them to our clerk.
[English]
One question was asked of you earlier. It is ringing in my mind. I do not have it sorted out clearly. It has been 16 or 17 months that you have been in an acting position, and Mr. Dolhai and Ms. Proulx have been in acting positions for that period of time. As I recall the process, the Attorney General has 10 names, and from those names the committee of parliamentarians chooses three. That has been done. The Attorney General got back the three names, and from that he chose one, you. Congratulations.
Mr. Saunders: Thank you.
The Chair: How long ago was your name chosen from the three?
Mr. Saunders: I believe it was sometime in mid-February.
The Chair: Of this year?
Mr. Saunders: Yes.
The Chair: We have been waiting since mid-February. How long did he have the three names to choose from?
Mr. Saunders: That I do not know.
The Chair: I cannot understand why it would take so long to get through a process that seems so simple since he started with the names in the first place. They are the Attorney General's 10 names; he created that list.
Mr. Saunders: I am afraid you are asking the wrong person.
The Chair: You know because it is in the legislation, or maybe you have not looked at the legislation.
Mr. Saunders: I have read the legislation.
The Chair: You know that the Attorney General creates a list of 10 names.
Mr. Saunders: You are asked me how long the Attorney General had the names. I do not know that.
The Chair: I said we started with the Attorney General creating the 10 names. You are not debating that with me.
Mr. Saunders: No, not at all.
The Chair: They are his names.
Mr. Saunders: Yes.
The Chair: Since February, your name has been chosen. I have forgotten what happens next.
Mr. Saunders: After my nomination, there was a resolution in the House referring the nomination to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I appeared before that committee probably three weeks ago in order to have a confirmation hearing. Unfortunately, other matters arose and the committee was not able to hear me.
The Chair: My goodness; isn't this something. Thank you for clearing that up.
Do Mr. Dolhai and Ms. Proulx have to continue to be acting until you stop acting?
Mr. Saunders: They can stop any time they like. I certainly hope they will not because they are invaluable.
The Chair: Is their acting position dependent on your acting position?
Mr. Saunders: No. What happens is that once the permanent DPP is selected, then under our legislation the permanent DPP sits down with the Minister of Justice and someone from the Federation of Law Societies of Canada and makes a selection of a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions. That person then has to be approved or appointed by a Governor-in-Council. It is an order-in-council appointment as well.
The Chair: What have we created?
[Translation]
The Chair: I thank you all for having attended this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance and I wish you good luck.
The committee adjourned.