Justice Committee on May 17th, 2007

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

You mentioned a war crimes prosecution. To me it seems like that would be so rare, yet so specialized. How do you handle the requirement for a degree of expertise on issues that may only come along so often? You're allocating your resources or looking at how to maintain the best service for all of Canada, but then you have something come along that's really rare, but you need to be up to the task in that regard.

[Brian Saunders]

When we do these prosecutions, we're assisted by the modern war crimes unit of the Department of Justice. This is also true of what I'll call regulatory offences. For example, Fisheries and Oceans has a unit at Justice, with lawyers experienced in that area. Perhaps Fisheries and Oceans is a bad example, because our prosecutors tend to be experienced in that area, but in the war crimes, we work with the modern war crimes unit lawyers. They provide advice. They don't have any influence on our prosecutorial decision, because that's where we draw the line and that's our independence. We can't have anyone influence that decision, but they help to provide the expertise.

When you get down to it, prosecutors are used to looking at a law, a provision of the Criminal Code, a provision of another statute, and determining the essential elements to prove. That's not too difficult to do. What becomes difficult is marshalling the evidence, and we hope our prosecutors are experts at that. That's what you become an expert at doing when you're a litigator: determining what evidence you have to call to meet the elements of the offence.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

Madam Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much for being here this morning.

I have the page from the estimates and the budgets that are being projected for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for 2007-08. Given that we already had a process in place that existed for decades and decades, it means that the work you're going to be doing was ultimately already being done at Justice. Is this budget simply pulling out the money that normally is spent anyway and just putting it under the heading of “Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions”? Or does the creation of the Public Prosecution Service not only mean the budget, not only the money that got spent anyway in paying the staff, administrative and legal, etc., but additional costs for creation, setting up, or whatever? If there are additional costs, what are they? Break them out for us.

[Brian Saunders]

Do you have in front of you the reports on plans and priorities? Is that the only document you have? What you have there is the money that was transferred from Justice. It shows $86.3 million, and there's also $12.2 million that represents employee benefit plans. That $12.2 million is not money that sits within our budget. It's Treasury Board money to pay for pensions and other benefits that are paid to employees.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I don't have anything here that says $12.2 million.

[Brian Saunders]

Okay, so the $12.2 million doesn't show up in that. In any event, that money is not part of our budget. It's money that sits with Treasury Board.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Yes, I know. But it's designated for the cost—

[Brian Saunders]

It was designated before we were staffed.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

That's what I wanted to know.

[Brian Saunders]

In terms of additional money in budget 2006, as part of the accountability action plan—

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Is that 2006-07?

[Brian Saunders]

Yes, 2006. There was $15 million in one-time transition costs over two years, and there was $7.8 million in permanent, ongoing costs that were allowed to us. We have to make a submission to Treasury Board to access those funds.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

You said $15 million was attributed in 2006-07 to cover two years' worth of transitional costs, which means that part of that $15 million is found in what we have here.

[Brian Saunders]

No, because it's not part of the main estimates. It's money we have to access by going to supplementaries.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Okay.

And the $7.8 million, annually recurrent, does not show up in this $109,868,000?

[Brian Saunders]

No, it doesn't. Again, that is money we have to access through the supplementary estimates, following a submission to Treasury Board.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Fine.

I can possibly understand.... Are you in a position to provide us with an actual breakdown of what the $15-million transitional cost has been used for and continues to be scheduled to be used for until March 31, 2008?

[Brian Saunders]

We haven't used any of that money yet. As I mentioned, we have to make a submission to Treasury Board.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Will you be making a submission?

[Brian Saunders]

We plan on making a submission.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Then you are in a position to say you will, in the future, have to cover x costs as part of the transition.

[Brian Saunders]

I'll ask Mr. Fortin to give more detail, but the $15 million was intended to cover moving costs, some infrastructure costs in terms of IMIT—information management and information technology—and things of that nature. For example, right now our headquarters is co-located with Justice. Our intention is to move out of the Justice headquarters and have our own premises.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

That then means you are in a position—