Justice Committee on Nov. 28th, 2013

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

You are actually saying that perhaps the director of public prosecutions should be at this table. Could it be noted that we would like to hear from the people who are able to answer our questions, especially when something in the supplementary estimates is fully linked to the budget of the director of public prosecutions? If not, what is the use of having witnesses who tell us that they cannot answer? I understand and respect that, but we are talking about an additional $3.8 million. There aren't a lot of similar amounts at the Department of Justice. We are talking about a $10.9 million portfolio.

The first point, for the Supreme Court, is linked to parking. I think everyone understood, but why $3.8 million? Have they moved? What is the idea behind the move? No one can tell us. It is a bit odd.

If they cannot give us an answer, that's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Is there a question in there?

Fine.

Thank you for those answers.

Our next questioner is from the Conservative Party, Mr. Wilks.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the people from Justice for being here this morning.

The supplementary estimates (B) include grants and contributions totalling $9.8 million in funding for the aboriginal justice strategy.

Can you elaborate on some of the programs this money will be funding?

[William F. Pentney]

I would be happy to, Mr. Chair.

The aboriginal justice strategy is a long-standing program. It was established in 1991. As the minister said previously, there are 275 programs that reach over 800 communities. As was referred to in an earlier question, the origins of the aboriginal justice strategy are in recognition that for many aboriginal people, the encounter with the justice system, particularly in remote and isolated communities, was fly-in fly-out justice that didn't correspond to traditions or have the kind of long-term impact that was desired. These are community-based justice programs, often founded by people who have decided to take leadership in their communities and establish community-based, opt-in diversion programs. These programs support police and prosecutors dealing with low-level offenders, often first-time offenders. They often divert them into community encounter programs with victims and families and the family of the offender. I have been involved in some of them.

One of the most interesting things in this is that evaluations consistently show that for many offenders who have been through the justice system before, this is a harder thing for them to do, to stand before their mother and father, and the mother and father and sister and brother of the victim, and explain why they did what they did, explain the program they're going to work with in their community to try to address it, and to make reparations for what they did, which has often involved low-level theft and other things.

There are programs throughout the country, urban and rural. The question was asked before about how many communities are not reached. We can certainly look at that, but I can tell you that there are programs in the north, and programs in every province and territory, urban, off reserve, on reserve. All are supported by the aboriginal justice strategy. It has been a long-standing program that has reached many communities. It is fully cost-shared with the provinces and territories.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

That leads me to my next question with regard to aboriginal justice and the response to be shared by various levels of government. How much do the provinces contribute, and what percentage is contributed by the federal government?

[William F. Pentney]

If we're funding a program, over the five-year life of the program, it's a 50:50 cost share. The aboriginal justice strategy is funded in five-year increments.

In many provinces, given the responsibility for the administration of justice, they're investing more in serving aboriginal communities through policing and other arrangements. The Department of Justice supports the aboriginal court worker program. We work with Public Safety on programs for aboriginal offenders in corrections and the provincial policing role of the RCMP. In the cost-shared role with the provinces there are many programs that involve outreach to aboriginal communities.

This is one part of a spectrum of programming, and the AJS is cost-shared 50:50, but I would say that provinces are investing more.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

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

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To the officials, first, I want to publicly thank you and your department for being so helpful and cooperative in providing me with a departmental briefing during the prorogation period. I also want to thank your department for agreeing to a further briefing on Bill C-13. It greatly helps me in what I do. I thanked you privately, but I wanted to do that on the record as well.

I want to follow up on a conversation I had with the minister in the last couple of days. I'm back on Bill C-13 now, and I'm concerned about the immunity that's being afforded keepers of electronic records within the statute. What I heard in the House and in committee today is that this immunity is only applicable where the disclosure is lawful and it's under judicial oversight. If I understand what the minister said correctly, why do they need it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'll let this question stand. The minister opened the door by talking about legislation he's bringing forward, but we're actually supposed to be talking about supplementary estimates (B). He indicated that there's no allocation of funding for the legislation anywhere in supps (B). I'll let the officials respond, but I would try to keep the questions to supps (B) or any of the other estimates documents that relate to them. If you could relate this to one of the strategic plans in the report on plans and priorities, that would be helpful, but I'll let you answer.

[William F. Pentney]

First, Mr. Casey, I appreciate your public words of thanks to the department. We're always pleased to assist parliamentarians from all parties in understanding the important legislation that we support the government in advancing.

I'll ask Mr. Piragoff to speak briefly to the question you've asked. I have no doubt that we'll have further opportunities to discuss all of the elements of Bill C-13 in the coming days.

[Donald Piragoff, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister's Office, Department of Justice]

Thank you.

With respect to the question about disclosure, there is a provision in the Criminal Code currently that authorizes voluntary disclosure of information to the police. That's been around for a number of years. That provision right now is worded such that it provides information to the police for the purposes of enforcing this act or any other act of Parliament. Under the common law, if people comply with the law, and they do things pursuant to law, the common law gives them civil and criminal law immunity.

The problem with the current law is the provision that says enforcement of this act or any other act is too limiting because the police do not only act pursuant to statutory powers, they also act pursuant to common law powers. For example, there's a car accident and the police find the person in the car accident. The person dies. All they may have is a telephone, some means, and they want to contact next of kin. They may contact, for example, the telephone company, because the cellphone has a number. Who, then, does the cellphone belong to, etc., in order to contact next of kin? Those kinds of powers are not crime-fighting powers, but they are typical common law powers of peace officers. The provision is being proposed to be amended to expand the authority of ISPs, for example, or anybody else, to provide information to the police for the purposes of executing not only statutory powers, but also common law powers.

Also, the new provision would propose to make it clear. What the common law already grants is that when you provide this information voluntarily, pursuant to a lawful authority, you do have immunity.

With respect to the limitations, as the minister said, there are other laws that restrict the provision of information. For example, if a corporation is governed by PIPEDA, then they have to comply with PIPEDA. This provision does not override PIPEDA necessarily. They still have to provide and comply with any other laws. That's why the minister said there are a number of different layers here.

To be short in terms of an answer, the existing law provides the authority to disclose information. The proposal is to ensure that this authority covers all police officers' duties, statutory as well as common law, and also to ensure that people who provide this information do have their common law rights of immunity.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Okay. I'll take the advice of the chair and pursue this in conversation at our briefing, but thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Mr. Casey.

The next questioner is from the Conservative Party, and that's me.

First of all, thank you for coming.

To Madame Boivin's point, I've been active on the government operations committee, and we're talking about estimates. One of the recommendations coming from that committee is that if you're looking at the estimates and there's a specific issue that you have, it's helpful for the department to know. I used to be on the industry committee, and there was a long list of estimates. If you didn't specifically let them know that you were going to be asking a question in that area, often the staff member responsible for that area was not in the room, which was always a frustration for me. I've tried to start providing information. That's part of a report that's gone of 11 recommendations that the government has accepted and is working on.

I'm just taking my own Conservative slot of five minutes, which I have provided in advance.

The one thing I looked at is the report on plans and priorities. We talk about what the means were, which was the $657 million, and then we look at planned spending for this year at $748 million, which is a $90-million change. I need an explanation of what that is. Then we go back, in planning, for 2014-15 and 2015-16, to the $626 million and the $617 million. I'm assuming those are what the main estimates would look like, based on that.

Could you explain those two differences for me?

[William F. Pentney]

I'm just waiting for the bells to start ringing, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

No, no. I'm sorry.

[William F. Pentney]

Madame Thivierge will be pleased to answer the questions that you have.

[Marie-Josée Thivierge, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Office of Assistant Deputy Minister, Management Sector and CFO, Department of Justice]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

I believe you're referring to page 9 of the report on plans and priorities. Essentially, the main estimates is actually the first of the four-stage estimate process. As you know, our funding is secured through the main estimates, the supplementary estimates (A), (B), and (C), as appropriate, as well as through funding from Treasury Board central votes. That actually cover costs incurred by departments for things like severance payments, parental leave, collective agreements, adjustments, and operating budget carry-forward.

In preparing the report on plans and priorities, we actually included what you referred to as $90 million or so. The $86.8 million has been accounted for, which is for the planned spending related to those central votes, those things that are tied, as I mentioned earlier, to severance payments, parental leave, collective agreements.

When you go back to the planned spending for 2014-15 and 2015-16, those amounts are not there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Are they not there because we don't plan on spending it, or because we've looked after the issues in this fiscal year?

[Marie-Josée Thivierge]

It's because it's premature for us to estimate what those amounts will be at this time because of the nature of those costs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Then I look at the public accounts, and we spend about $750 million—I am rounding my numbers—on department stuff. Your estimate in your report on plans and priorities is basically accurate within a few million dollars. When I got here, I thought that was a lot of money, but I've discovered it's not quite as much as it was then.

Can you tell me why, when we're looking forward, we don't include what we're actually going to spend in those planned years?

It doesn't make sense that we go back to what the main estimates would be, if we know we're going to spend $750 million.

[Marie-Josée Thivierge]

All I can say is that the report on plans and priorities is in line with our Treasury Board Secretariat guidelines. They're prepared according to the policies that are given to us, and therefore, what is here actually reflects TBS guidelines and templates.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

The other part in that is a forecast for staff, and the staff looks flat in terms of numbers.

Do you have a view on that? Is that an accurate projection?

[Marie-Josée Thivierge]

It is, in part, because spending has gone down, which is largely attributable to reductions in transfer payments, so that's grants and contributions, which don't impact as significantly the FTEs. Our current projection is that the FTE complement will be relatively stable over that three-year period

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I haven't been picking on you because you're here and I'm on this committee; in a couple of hours I'll be picking on Immigration with the same ideas.

We have money here, transferred from one vote to another basically, based on savings that we make in a certain area. We didn't spend money on a program because we found efficiencies or didn't have the demand or whatever; we just moved the money to somewhere else.

Is that really savings?