Finance Committee on Feb. 9th, 2026

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I'll defer to the officials, who may have the current information. I don't have it in front of me. What I don't have today, we can provide in writing.

[Toby Hoffmann, Director and General Counsel, Judicial Affairs Section, Department of Justice]

We'd be happy to provide that, Mr. Brock.

There are vacancies, but one of the issues is quorum. While there may be vacancies on a committee, they can still do their work and still do their business. There were a few situations in the past where—as I think you were trying to say, Mr. Brock—some JACs were down, but as I recall, they were staffed up quite quickly. Quorum is an issue as well.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Are you going to give me some details on which province has the vacancies?

[Toby Hoffmann]

Yes. I actually looked at them today, Mr. Brock, but I can't remember them off the top of my head.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

That's fair enough.

Minister, your department represents the largest law firm in Canada. The Association of Justice Counsel, which represents 3,500 federal lawyers and prosecutors—perhaps some of the officials I'm seeing right here could be part of that association—was very concerned about deep spending cuts announced in budget 2025. It claims it risks “undermining the very systems Canadians depend on to uphold fairness, accountability, and public safety.” Its view is, “when you cut justice, you cut the rule of law.” It notes that early retirement incentive programs have been offered for senior counsel, which “risks accelerating the loss of experienced counsel at a time when mentorship and training capacity are already stretched.”

Why did your department cancel the LP-01 training initiative for new lawyers?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I'll give you a framing answer. If the officials would like to layer on about the specific training position you mentioned, I'd invite them to.

There's one nuance where the Department of Justice is impacted differently from many other departments by the expenditure review. Our program funding would be treated the same as every other department's, and I think we owe it to Canadians to focus on what's working—to do less of what's not working and more of what is. Every department will have that to a degree.

The challenge with what you described as us being the largest law firm—which, I think is accurate—is that we operate on a model much like a law firm, where the billing that comes in is actually covered by expenses that are budgeted for in other departments. It's not as though a target of a 15% reduction in spending would impact legal services the same, because that's demand-driven. It's based on requests made from clients, rather than a standing budget that the Department of Justice would have to go and axe.

I expect that the position you have referred to would not necessarily fall into the same category as expenditure reviews more generally.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Under your government's comprehensive expenditure review, the DOJ was expected to reduce spending by 15% over three years. That's the same target for all departments, despite growing court backlogs, heavier caseloads and an increasing complexity of legal work.

The government had an election commitment, which it claims is unfulfilled, to increase funding for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. Can you weigh in on that, please?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I'll adopt portions of my previous answer.

To understand the impact, you really need to understand that it's not necessarily a cut in the number of lawyers working at the Department of Justice. Those budget line items would come from other departments that engage the department. To the extent that there's more litigation, it wouldn't necessarily result in budget cuts to the Department of Justice. It would be a reflection, instead, of the demand put upon the department from other departments within government.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

The Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association, which represents close to 1,400 federally appointed judges across Canada, has sued the federal government for failing to adequately engage with an independent commissioner's analysis when it rejected the commissioner's recommendations to increase judicial salaries in November.

You, as a government—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

I apologize, Mr. Brock. That concludes your time.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Five minutes goes by way too fast, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

It does, especially when you're having so much fun.

We will now go to Mr. Fragiskatos for five minutes.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Minister, is there anything you wish to clear up or didn't have a chance to put on the record about regulatory sandboxes and the Conflict of Interest Act, which you were engaged in conversation about and would perhaps like to add to?

It's whatever you wish.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Regulatory sandboxes is an area outside of my formal responsibility, but I'll tell you my own views on them.

It's a great opportunity for Canadian industry to compete with other economies around the world that have embraced this new tool as a way to support innovation in high-growth potential companies and to find new solutions to old problems in existing industries. That's really what it is, at the core. We can have a different set of rules while we test out something new, so we don't miss out on the economic opportunities that result.

If there are real considerations around exempting the Criminal Code, ethical concerns or concerns that speak to the integrity of those who have the official authority to deploy the powers contemplated by the budget implementation act, it's very appropriate for this committee and Parliament to express their views, either through amendments or through a study with recommendations to government.

I was satisfied with the protections, when I reviewed them, around the limited scope of the authority, given its temporal nature, the public requirement and the need to specify what the authority is being used for. However, I don't want to suggest that this is a preordained outcome. My colleagues around the cabinet table, I find, are willing to consider amendments. Again, we don't agree with them all.

This is a conversation about whether we're going to ignore a tool that we know exists and has helped countries grow their economies, or figure out how to use that tool in a responsible way. I think we should use the tool in a responsible way.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

There have been six public safety laws put forward recently by you and the government. I know that Minister Anandasangaree has been part of that as well. You've been working with him.

Where are we at on those laws and the progress? What's been holding this up?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I've found it to be a source of frustration with some recent signs for hope—if I can give you that opener.

The bail and sentencing reform act, after several months of being delayed, is moving along. Hopefully, we can have its expeditious passage through the House and the Senate and change Canada's laws.

I hope a similar fate will apply to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, though that remains to be seen.

The combatting hate act, because of a policy disagreement, has become the source of a lengthy filibuster that has delayed the proceedings in the justice committee for months and, by implication, delayed the adoption of other pieces of legislation that are now, potentially, finding a path forward. What is most frustrating about this particular piece is that the committee's study is largely done and it only needs to examine certain clauses, which could be dispensed with in a single meeting. My sense is that, if parties have objections, a filibuster is not required. Cast your vote—you're entitled to as members who've been elected by your constituents—and let the majority's will stand.

There are other bills that have been the subject of obstruction and delay—for example, the strong borders act. This is preventing us from giving powers to law enforcement to crack down on extortion, bust child pornography rings and examine packages going into Canadian communities that may contain fentanyl. I hope we can work together to understand from law enforcement the value of these tools, and also to understand this from the communities that are affected and want the law to change in order to offer better protections so that, for example, they can practise the faith of their choice.

However, this newly collaborative first week or two on the bail and sentencing reform act, in particular, has given me some optimism. I think, over the next week or two, we will find out if that spirit of collaboration will continue.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thank you.

As my last question, why is lawful access so important?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Lawful access, for those watching at home, would give law enforcement the authority to look at certain digital information, with certain protections around privacy, including oversight by a court, where appropriate. I've actually sat down with and walked through different police headquarters, one of which showed me how they receive information. In this case, it was tied to bad actors who were likely engaged in material that potentially touched on child sex crimes. With the authorities they have today, they can't complete the investigations that would lead to charges and potentially to the prosecution of people they suspect of being involved in very heinous crimes, but for whom they don't yet have the evidentiary basis to formally proceed with charges. Similarly, intercepting the digital cross-border communications of people who are potentially involved in the organization of extortion rings is something these powers could be used for.

In addition to the lawful access piece, I mentioned as well the ability of law enforcement to look at fentanyl that's being mailed into communities.

These are serious powers that we need law enforcement to have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Minister.

That concludes the time for this round.

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

We'll move on to Mr. Garon to finish the hour. You have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister Fraser, as pointed out by my colleague, Mr. Brock, you and all departments must make budget cuts over the next three years.

Of course, the unions and crown counsel have been in touch with us. They're quite concerned. They informed us that a number of people, particularly in the national litigation sector of the Department of Justice, received letters inviting them to retire or to leave their positions and to take advantage of all kinds of offers. Many federal government lawyers are worried about a loss of expertise. They expressed their concern that this loss of expertise would ultimately lead the federal government to increasingly turn to external players, particularly for specialized mandates.

What are your thoughts on this? Could you send us in writing the number of lawyers from the Department of Justice who will need to leave, as well as their level of experience?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I'm happy to provide what information we can, but I'll just re-explain the response I gave to Mr. Brock, because there's a unique nuance that impacts the Department of Justice differently from many other departments. Because we have a billing model wherein other departments effectively treat the Department of Justice as their law firm, it's not as though there's a standing budget item within the Department of Justice.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I understand.

I won't insist on making you repeat this. However, since other departments must also cut spending, your department could be affected. If possible, I would like you to share your information with us.

I would like to ask you another quick question. I've asked a number of other ministers this question.

Bill C‑15 would allow Canada Post to adopt rates without cabinet approval. Yet the legislation provides for an exception in order to protect municipal libraries so that they can send each other books at reduced rates, particularly in the regions of Quebec. Associations for people with disabilities, including people with visual impairments, are telling us that the bill's wording could prevent people in the regions from obtaining books in Braille.

Does this worry you? Also, do you think that it passes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms test? Have you made this assessment concerning Canada Post's rates?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Give a very brief response, please.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I think I'll have to follow up.

That's quite a specific question. For my colleagues—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

If you would like to follow up, you're welcome to do so.