Justice Committee on March 20th, 2013

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Gentlemen, thank you for joining us and spending an enjoyable hour reviewing your budgets with us.

As I told the minister, I think much of the review is totally pointless, as the situation could change tomorrow. However, let's assume that it will remain the same.

I have a few questions for you.

Regarding the federal government's contribution to help the provinces in terms of legal aid, I see that there are no major changes in Main Estimates 2013-2014. That's not where you will be making cuts. However, I don't see any increases either. I know that we are going through a period of fiscal restraint in many areas. That is what the government is saying. However, I am also very aware of the extremely urgent nature of the situation. This issue has been raised unanimously in all federal, provincial and territorial meetings between justice ministers. I even think that the Minister of Justice knows about the huge needs in legal aid and about the fact that we should work on improving that situation.

Regarding your department's proposal, I understand that the access to justice issues—in areas such as legal aid—will not be resolved in 2013-2014. In short, the federal partner will not take care of this.

Have I understood the document properly?

[William F. Pentney]

Thank you for the question.

Mr. Chair, it's true that there hasn't been a large increase in the federal contribution in this area, but $120 million will nevertheless be set aside for legal aid in this year's main estimates. That includes $11.5 million in temporary funding for legal aid—for immigration and the refugee situation—with an additional $500,000.

Although this is not a huge increase, it's not entirely true that no money has been added, as temporary funding has been allocated. That was a way to recognize the many needs in the area of immigration and refugee issues. Given the legal reforms and related requests, the government will allocate $11.5 million and an additional $500,000.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

How do you explain the fact that, in 2012-2013, you expected to allocate $108 million for legal aid in the current fiscal year?

That's always a concern for me. What I am interested in is comparing the items from last year's main estimates with those from this year's main estimates. We sometimes see major changes from one budget to the next. Is that because the Department of Justice manages the budget poorly?

Or is it simply because reality is catching up with you and you have no choice but to make adjustments along the way? If that's the case, I'm wondering what the point of having main estimates is, when we know perfectly well that the budget objectives regarding certain items will not be reached. That doesn't make sense.

I am looking at some of the items, and I am really wondering how you manage to operate within those budgets.

[William F. Pentney]

Thank you for the question.

Your question, which concerns Parliament's budget management methods, is too broad for a poor deputy minister like myself to answer. For now, the amount set out in the budget is $694 million. You can see in the estimates that we have spent $119 million so far on legal aid and that we expect to spend $120 million next year. It's not perfect, but....

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

That's not what you projected last year. The figure was $108 million.

[William F. Pentney]

Yes.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

There is quite a difference between $108 million and $119 million.

[William F. Pentney]

We are talking about $108 million on a permanent and ongoing basis and, as it was just mentioned, those are supplementary estimates that have been approved. All planned expenditures have to be approved by the Treasury Board before the money is spent, so that we can be accountable for sound resource management. I agree that it's not perfect, but we have obtained $108 million on a permanent basis. We have been successful. We submitted formal requests to the Department of Finance to obtain a bit more money for immigration and refugees.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I was about to say that.

[William F. Pentney]

Yes.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

That has more to do with immigration legislation than with requests made by the provinces.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Madame Boivin.

I am going to ask the next set of questions. I'm taking a Conservative slot for this.

This is my first time reviewing the estimates for Justice, so I'm excited about it. Not too many people get too excited about it.

My questions are technical in nature, just so I understand what's going on.

I do like the new format of the estimates. I appreciate that. I understand the 2011-12, in the mains, votes 1 and 5.... But the estimates to date, I cannot add up anywhere. I looked at supplementary (C)s. I cannot get to the same number.

I want to know what makes up the estimates to date. The numbers do not correlate.

[William F. Pentney]

I'll wait for Mr. Schnob to find his tab.

My understanding was that it would represent mains and supplementaries and—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

It does not, if you look at supplementary (C)s, which we just approved. So I went back to the supplementary (B)s, because the supplementary (C)s probably wouldn't be in it, and the supplementary (B)s were not in it either.

[William F. Pentney]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I want to know what “estimates to date” means. I'm not picking on Justice; this is the same thing for everyone.

[William F. Pentney]

It's a fair question. We'll get back to you because obviously my understanding is not the correct one. I understood that with the format that was being....

[Daniel Schnob, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Justice]

My understanding is it includes the supplementary estimates (A), (B), and (C). We had supplementary estimates (B) and (C) voted in the last fiscal year, 2012-13.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

For estimates in 2012-13, which we're dealing with, we're approving supplementary (C)s tonight. So if you're telling me that... And I have supplementary (C)s with me—

[William F. Pentney]

No, you wouldn't have supplementary (C)s in there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

If you look at supplementary (C)s and if you look at supplementary (B)s, they're not the same number. If you could get back to me on what makes up that number, that would be appreciated.

[William F. Pentney]

Yes, I will.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Very briefly, there was a discussion previously with the minister and you about sunsetting. Realistically, a department cannot refund a sunsetting item unless it's approved by Parliament. Is that not correct?

[William F. Pentney]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

So it would be impossible, it would be illegal for you to put in your estimates that we were going to continue this program if it has a sunsetting date. Is that not correct?