Justice Committee on May 8th, 2014

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I believe you were going to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

No, I think Monsieur Goguen has some questions.

Monsieur Goguen.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to talk to you about the road map to Canada's linguistic duality. I wonder if you could talk to us about the increased funding from 2014 to 2015, from 2016 to 2018, regarding the road map for Canada's official languages, 2013-2018? Could you explain to us how these resources will be used to support official language minority communities? Do you have examples of projects funded, please?

[William F. Pentney]

I will lead off, and then others will join.

The government is obviously committed to reinforcing and doing what it can within its jurisdiction for the importance of both official languages and the importance of the capacity of those who are involved in the justice system one way or another, whether as judges, as defendants who come before the courts, or obviously as crown attorneys, whether on the public prosecution side or on the civil justice side, to ensure that we're respecting official language rights.

The road map is a continuation of a reasonably long-standing program that's looking at doing a couple of different things. One is providing practical support, and we can speak more in detail, if you'd like, about the support, for example, that's provided to allow judges to increase their linguistic capacity to manage proceedings in both official languages and also to support communities and community outreach, especially community information. Here I'd underline two specific things.

Sometimes, it is difficult for them to understand technical terms, be they in English or in French. However, we use those terms a great deal. We have supported programs aimed at helping lawyers and the public understand and use the correct terms, in both English and French.

So we have directed some program resources to support that sort of building of tool kits, if you like, that aid lawyers, judges, or others in the community to use the proper terms.

The other aspect of funding has gone to try to support the sharing of best practices and what is working and what can work better.

So, practically speaking, these are resources to ensure that there can be an enhanced respect for the use of both official languages in the court systems. A significant amount of the resources go to supporting judicial training or other kinds of training to provide the practical tools on the ground to enable that to become a reality. The resources that we're administering are largely program resources that are out the door. We have a small team in the department that administers that and coordinates with other experts, provincially and territorially, to try to ensure that we're understanding what the needs are. But the vast bulk of those resources, I think it's fair to say, is money out the door to communities' programs, and a part of it goes to judicial training.

Barb, is there anything we should add?

[Barbara Merriam, Director General, Programs Branch, Department of Justice]

No, I don't think so. I think you've covered everything.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I just have more of a comment than a question.

When we did the official languages review under the Criminal Code, one thing that became apparent was that there seemed to be a certain lack of training in the level of translators and transcribers. I just pass that on as a reference.

That's all. Thank you.

[William F. Pentney]

Yes. I won't speak for

the translators who work here. There are very few trained people who are able to translate in such formal, important and serious proceedings as criminal cases. There are sometimes not enough people to do the work.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

The fact is that legal terminology is different from everyday language.

[William F. Pentney]

Yes, exactly.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner is Mr. Casey from the Liberal Party.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Witnesses, as you know, we presently have before this committee Bill C-13. One of the most troublesome aspects of that bill is the non-consensual, warrantless, but lawful, disclosure on a voluntary basis by Internet service providers. It has come to light that there are a million requests a year for information from Internet service providers and that in some instances the Government of Canada pays for this information.

How much money are we being asked to approve for payment to Internet service providers for non-consensual, warrantless, but lawful, disclosure of information?

[William F. Pentney]

Mr. Chairman, to my knowledge, that would be zero from the Department of Justice, from these appropriations. I could come back and confirm it. I won't speak for any of the portfolio agencies or DPP, but from the Department of Justice, subject to confirmation....

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

So the government—sorry?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Would you like to answer that?

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

In terms of the reference to Bill C-13, the explanation that has been provided to the committee is that the bill would enable law enforcement to ask for material that can be disclosed voluntarily now, that's not prohibited, for example, by PIPEDA.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Right.

[Carole Morency]

There are no costs associated with that. But as the deputy has suggested, we can verify.

[William F. Pentney]

I suppose it is possible. We will confirm whether or not any of the cases that we handle involve a requirement to seek voluntary information from service providers, and if so, whether any of that's paid for. But to my knowledge, in terms of the main estimates that are before the committee, I will confirm that and I will undertake to come back to the committee with confirmation.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Do the witnesses from the prosecution service care to respond to that?

[Brian J. Saunders]

The answer is that we don't spent any money in that area.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Okay.

We know that the government pays for this information, but the envelope that it comes from isn't Justice and it isn't prosecutions, as best we can determine. Is that what I should take from this?

[William F. Pentney]

In terms of the role of the Department of Justice, we are not in the investigation business, other than, for example, in terms of international assistance or mutual legal assistance where there are those kinds of activities. Our business is providing legal and policy support to the minister and legal advice to government departments. In those roles, since we're not an investigative agency, in that context we're not needing that information.

As I say, the one area that I want to confirm is whether or not our international assistance group, in carrying out requests either from foreign countries or from provinces and territories or prosecution agencies seeking extradition or mutual legal assistance, makes any contacts. But for us that would be the only area that I can think of that might involve those sorts of requests.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

The victims bill of rights was something that was referenced by the minister in his remarks. This bill provides for an avenue for parties to obtain information, provides for a complaint mechanism, apparently provides for programs.

Can you tell us, within the estimates, what new money has been identified as a result of the introduction of the victims bill of rights?

[William F. Pentney]

I don't believe in these estimates that any new resources have specifically been identified. There are resources allocated to the victims fund. There are obviously staff resources that have been allocated to the development of the victims bill of rights that would be devoted to supporting its effective implementation, by training and communicating with those who will be implementing it, if and when the bill is passed. But since the bill has not been passed, we're not now before Parliament seeking approval for an appropriation in respect of it.

I think the government has been clear that there will be some resources associated with implementing the victims bill of rights, but in these main estimates we're not before Parliament asking for approval for funding for a bill that's not yet been passed.