Finance Committee on Feb. 9th, 2026

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Okay.

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

Excellent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Good.

Colleagues, thank you very much. That concludes the first hour.

I'd like to thank Minister Fraser and the Department of Justice officials who joined him.

We will briefly suspend while we change over to the next panel.

Thank you, colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Colleagues, we are going to resume the meeting.

I would like to welcome our witnesses. They were actually here for the first hour and have stayed at the table, so thank you very much.

There are no opening remarks, so we will commence with six minutes from Mr. Brock, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome back, officials. I'm going to circle back on some of the themes that I raised with the minister.

Of the number of you present here today, which members are part of the Association of Justice Counsel? Who among you are part of that association?

[Marie-Josée Poirier, Counsel, Judicial Affairs Section, Department of Justice]

I am.

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

It's just Ms. Poirier and Ms. MacDonald.

Okay. I don't know if this has been resolved at an internal level. I don't think I got proper clarity from the minister.

Of that up to 15% over three years, what is being projected in 2026 by way of cuts to the DOJ, and what types of cuts are we talking about? Are we talking about forced retirement or suggested retirement? Are we looking at other efficiencies? Could you expand on that, please?

[Sarah Geh, Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice]

Perhaps I could start answering that one.

There aren't going to be any forced retirements. I think the justice department is taking a similar position to many other departments. There were approximately 370 affected letters that were sent out by the Department of Justice.

You may be aware that on the Treasury Board website there is a chart that tracks the different departments and the letters that have gone out, the number of affected employees and the number of reductions that are anticipated from those letters that were sent out.

Of those letters, we are anticipating that 129 positions would be reduced through workforce adjustment.

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

What does that mean?

[Sarah Geh]

That would mean, for example, if there is a work unit of 10, there would be a choice made about how many positions would need to be reduced, so for—

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

When you say “reduced”, you're talking about termination. Is that correct?

[Sarah Geh]

That's correct, or it would be a layoff, and then—

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

Would that be with no expectation of rehiring?

[Sarah Geh]

There would be a process where, of those 10 employees, there would be what's called a selection for retention or layoff. Then the employees who were chosen to be retained would be retained, and the employees who were chosen to be laid off could choose to be put on a priority list if there were other positions elsewhere.

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

As I indicated to the minister, the association represents just over 3,500 lawyers and prosecutors. In my view, it is by far the largest legal firm or entity in this country.

I know a pressing issue, predominantly in the 44th Parliament, if you recall what life was like leading up to the decision by Justin Trudeau to prorogue, was that we had a motion of privilege that went unaddressed by the government for several months because of the exposure of significant scandals that plagued the Justin Trudeau government and the significant use of outside consultants billing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

I'm just curious: Given the size of your law firm, the entity that is the Department of Justice, I understand that from time to time, despite the size, you retain outside counsel. I don't know if that's simply because of a conflict of interest or whether that is your way of attracting the best talent in the private sector to assist you in the course of discharging your duties.

How do you justify to Canadian taxpayers the use of outside legal counsel when, presumably, you are hiring the brightest of the bright when you do your job interviews? I understand you have a mixture of talent from very senior counsel to mid-level and junior experience, so framing that question, how do you justify to the taxpayer the use of outside legal firms?

[Sarah Geh]

Thank you for your question.

On behalf of the Department of Justice, I want to thank you for the appreciation of the work that the lawyers at justice do.

Under the Department of Justice Act, we are the legal counsel for the government. We are, as you've mentioned, a large legal firm, if you compare it to private firms, so we have an enormous amount of capacity within the department. We are funded in different ways. As the minister said, there are situations, which are not common, where legal agents are hired. It could be for a variety of reasons, including conflict of interest, as you have mentioned.

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

I remember what life was like when I worked for a firm. If an individual lawyer had a conflict of interest, the entire firm had a conflict of interest, or the perception of a conflict of interest. Is that the same sort of rationale for why there perhaps may be a conflict of interest amongst the entire 3,500-lawyer firm?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Give a very brief response, please.

[Sarah Geh]

There could be a variety of reasons to hire legal agents. It could be a conflict of interest, as you said. It could be something else—for example, hiring legal agents who need to operate in another country.

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

Okay. I'll be circling back in my next round.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Brock.

We'll continue with Mr. Fragiskatos for six minutes.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be splitting my time with Mr. Leitão.

At the outset of this meeting, we had the Minister of Justice. Minister Fraser talked about unified family courts. It's a structure that I think won't be known to many. Do you have any information on the layout of these across Canada, how many there are and the level of interaction that exists between the federal government and those types of courts?

[Toby Hoffmann]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Fragiskatos. I will ask Madame Poirier to ring in on this as well. She's an expert in family matters.

The raison d'être of the UFC is to provide, as the minister said, family law services in one place. Those could include matters before a judge regarding the Divorce Act or matters under provincial jurisdiction. It could also include the possibility of other programs that might be provided to families in a provincial court but not in a superior court of justice.

I think you had asked about structure. That's how it all comes together.

I'll ask Madame Poirier to continue.

[Marie-Josée Poirier]

UFCs are often described as a one-stop shop. The court can hear all family law matters. The structure normally is that it's at the superior court level. The province saves money, because they don't have to appoint and pay the provincial court judges who would normally hear provincial cases. The province then invests that money in family justice services—for example, in mediation or parental education programs.

I don't know if that answers your question.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

It does. Thank you very much.

Madam Chair, it's been an interesting day, with a number of witnesses testifying. We respect very much the time of the justice officials. I know that they have a lot on their plates as well, as do we with a BIA of 700-plus pages.

I just want to make sure my colleagues are listening. This is an important one, at least for the evening.

With that in mind, Madam Chair, I move that we adjourn the meeting.