Justice Committee on Nov. 29th, 2012

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

You have nothing to add regarding these questions? Okay.

My next question is about Shiprider.

A $230,000 amount is available in the current budget of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That money is set aside for the funding for the implementation of integrated cross-border law enforcement commitments, under the Beyond the Border Action Plan. This is in vote 35.

First, I would like to know where those savings stem from?

[Bill Pentney]

Mr. Chair, as the committee member mentioned, that has to do with the budget of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I cannot talk about that office's budget or its administration.

I'm sure he would be happy to attend if the committee were to invite him. He'll thank me later for saying that.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

So, you cannot answer my question.

I will ask my second question. Are those one-time or permanent savings. What is the role of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions under the Shiprider program?

[Bill Pentney]

I'm sorry, but I cannot answer on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has to answer for his administration. That's why the government decided to create an independent director of public prosecutions.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I will share my time.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

You've used five minutes.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

You're done.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

It's back to you, Mr. Scott.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I'm getting the strong sense that my colleagues are looking forward to some other activities. I'll try not to delay this too long.

Mr. Pentney, I was just wondering if you could help clarify what no doubt might have been confusion on my part with respect to this vote 30b for the Courts Administration Service. We were briefly talking about this at the break. Could you explain how the system works so that this is before us as a supplementary estimate?

[Bill Pentney]

In terms of the budget process—and I know there's another committee of the House that has examined the operation of the budget process—the main estimates are voted on, and historically over time the main estimates have generally not reflected items that are reflected in that year's budget. So the 2012 main estimates that were tabled reflected the continuing operations of the department, but there are a number of sunsetting programs, many of which are now before this committee in the context of supplementary estimates (B).

The main estimates reflect a tragic loss of money, and the supplementary estimates represent a miraculous return of money, and at the end of the day it kind of balances out. Officials from the Treasury Board could explain historically why this is so and why this is the way the Parliament of Canada has appropriated money. But essentially, when the mains were voted on, a certain appropriation was approved for the department. Through the budgetary process and subsequent approvals, the government decided to come forward to Parliament and seek supplementary estimates in respect of the renewal of a number of time limited programs.

You asked earlier about the special advocates program. The Courts Administration funding is related only to Division 9 proceedings under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It's simply a reflection of the fact that when the program was established, the decision was made not to give it permanent and ongoing funding as a new program, but to renew it from time to time. As I understand it, the money has gone up and down in adjustment to what's been needed, but the Courts Administration Service simply does not have an ongoing kind of aid base or core funding for it.

The way the system works is the mains are voted on, the government brings forward its budget, and other approvals are done. The government tables supplementary estimates, generally to reflect adjustments associated with the budget. In the department's case, that's an adjustment up for some new resources for aboriginal justice, for court-ordered counsel, for court administration. It also reflects the savings associated with DRAP, so it's kind of a netting out to the supplementary estimates.

That's how the appropriations process currently works under the system for the whole of government, and that's why we're here before you seeking approval for supplementary estimates.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Just as a follow-on, to show how confused I may or may not have been, the $3 million-ish here, a part of which deals with obtaining assurances against torture and exceptional removal cases in the context of the immigration proceedings—is that the entirety of the annual budget for that item, or is there something in the main estimates that really is a foundation and this is added on top?

[Bill Pentney]

That question I'm going to have to take under advisement, just to make sure I give you entirely the right answer. This would represent the bulk of the funding, but it's possible that part of the ongoing departmental resources, what we would call the A base, is being allocated towards this. If it's acceptable to the committee, I'll take it under advisement and we'll simply confirm.

This would certainly represent the bulk of the resources dedicated to the Division 9 proceedings for the courts, for the department, and for the special advocates.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I don't have any other questions. I think the fact of this being in the estimates sparked a number of questions that I think are relevant to how costs are generated, but not as relevant as they might be in other areas of the government system.

If I have ongoing interest, I'll just formulate order paper questions.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I will be brief, Mr. Chair.

I asked the minister a number of questions about legal aid because I think this is a Canada-wide issue. It's prevalent across the country—in all jurisdictions. Some federal money is transferred to the provinces. I don't want to get a simple answer that the provinces are responsible for that.

That was one of the major issues discussed at the federal-provincial-territorial meeting. At the very end, I think the provincial and territorial ministers repeated their requests for the federal government to examine its funding in terms of civil legal aid. We know that those who need legal aid make up a large segment of the population. They are women and, very often, they are first nations members.

Has your department been assessing this situation? Are you currently conducting any studies on the legal aid issue, or is it simply a matter of business as usual where you say that this issue will be considered at the next federal-provincial-territorial meeting?

[Bill Pentney]

I will answer your question, and then Ms. Merriam can correct me or add something.

First, it should be pointed out that the government has spent a lot of money on legal aid. Part of that permanent funding is transferred to provinces and territories. We are talking about $112,000. That amount is not mentioned here, as it is....

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Ongoing.

[Bill Pentney]

Yes, it's ongoing.

Second, this process seeks to set aside about $14 million for immigration refugees and other types of refugees.

Third, the Canada Social Transfer is partially transferred to the provinces. Provinces can use it for legal aid or other social needs, which have been growing steadily over the years.

In the context of considerable financial strain, the government has maintained transfers to provinces in the three categories. In the third one, the Canada Social Transfer has continued to grow.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I was more interested in knowing whether studies have been conducted on legal aid needs.

[Bill Pentney]

Studies and discussions are ongoing with the provinces regarding legal aid and access to justice.

Ms. Merriam could perhaps add something to this discussion?

[Barbara Merriam]

No.

[Bill Pentney]

Okay.

There are ongoing discussions between the federal government and provincial governments.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Unless I'm mistaken, you're telling me that there is a budgetary limit, but that legal aid is nevertheless a concern for justice departments at different levels—be they provincial, territorial or federal.

My colleagues will surely agree with what I am about to say. I want to bring up the issue of existing penalties for impaired driving cases under the Criminal Code. The Department of Justice's provincial and territorial counterparts also want to toughen the law with regard to this. They apparently asked senior officials to study this issue as a priority and to provide them with some recommendations.

Do you think that examining this issue as a priority and providing various ministers with recommendations could result in new budget expenditures? Are projections being made based on that aspect, or is it a matter of looking into amending laws or the Criminal Code?

[Carole Morency, Acting Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

The ongoing study is focusing on the current legislation. Its goal is to determine whether we need other reforms to amend the legislation.

You are right—the press release published at the end of October talked about the ongoing study. It is actually just a review of the legislation and not a review of costs. The cost review could come later, but that will depend on the changes recommended to the minister.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Since we have the opportunity to hear from you, I will ask you my last question. I have been wondering about this for a long time, but I don't have the answer.

When legal proceedings involve the government, does the Department of Justice—even if it is not directly involved—have to cover the costs associated with all those cases? In other words, in a hypothetical conflict between an individual or a corporation and Transport Canada, are the costs stemming from that case covered by Transport Canada or the Department of Justice?