Justice Committee on Nov. 28th, 2013

[William F. Pentney]

Thank you for the question.

First, there is a significant differential between sending a Canadian abroad, with the moving and other expenses.... Sometimes, and certainly for our purposes, someone to represent Canada abroad and act as the liaison with other justice departments, both in the Council of Europe and with bilateral relations with particular countries, helping us to facilitate issues that may arise in relation to the development of the law....

We play a very active role. Mr. Piragoff spent a significant amount of his time helping the world have things like an international criminal accord and other laws. We cannot serve those purposes by hiring a locally employed person to act.

That being said, through the deficit reduction action plan, we've looked at our presence abroad, which is very minimal as a department, I must say. We have many officials from Ottawa who travel to participate in international criminal law especially, international trade law, and other kinds of activities.

We decided we could reorganize our presence in Europe to consolidate back to having one person posted and to eliminate that position in Paris. Effectively they are our eyes, ears, and voice. They develop relationships with those countries to help advance our interests in trying to ensure that the world has a more just and orderly system in which Canadians can feel protected wherever they are, and also on bilateral extradition and other related kinds of cases, where there may just be a need for that kind of a personal discussion and explanation. We send Canadians to represent us and carry out that activity. There is no way a locally employed person could do that, because it isn't the kind of administrative or other job that someone from anywhere can do.

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

I've certainly heard from some of our heads of mission. There are some very well-qualified Canadians living in places like London, England, and Paris, France, for example, and a lot of Canadian lawyers in those places who might be able to fill some of those roles, so it's always—

[William F. Pentney]

My experience is that most of them are earning salaries that are not competitive with the salary we're going to pay the poor schlep we send to Paris.

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

Fair enough. I know they do important work abroad.

Based on the public accounts information, how accurate has your department been in achieving your spending forecasts over the last five years?

[William F. Pentney]

I would say very accurate. I'll let Madame Thivierge give you the details.

[Marie-Josée Thivierge]

Looking back two years, the accuracy rate has been about 96.2%, so we've come within about 3.8%. For fiscal year 2011-12, the Department of Justice has realized a 4.4% variance against its overall budget. For the year 2012-13, it's a 3.3% variance.

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

In terms of the variances, do you see those in things like the prosecutors division? Is that where the variances come from, or is there any general statement you can make about where variances typically come from?

[Marie-Josée Thivierge]

I would suggest that they come from a number of sources in our different structure. As you know, we're an organization that operates with both A-base and vote net revenue authorities. At the end of the year, on a budget of roughly $1 billion, they will come from a number of places.

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

There was reference made earlier, I think, by Madame Boivin, to an amount of $3.8 million. I wasn't sure if it was the same $3.8 million—perhaps it was coincidental—but I understood it had something to do with relocation of offices with respect to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Is that the same amount we were discussing earlier?

[William F. Pentney]

Yes.

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

It has something to do with the need for new offices, but you're going to get back to the committee on specifics.

[William F. Pentney]

I think the Director of Public Prosecutions would be overjoyed to have the opportunity to provide that information. I can tell you, managing a set of offices in Ottawa, that sometimes moves are delayed; other things happen to shift things, but that's a relationship with Public Works.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much. We look forward to contacting that individual for some information.

Our next questioner is Mr. Kellway from the New Democratic Party.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was intrigued by the response to your questions, this $80 million or almost $90 million in spending, coupled with your response about 200 letters going out to staff for severance, I take it, or some kind of leave and whatnot, Mr. Pentney. Can you explain what the $90 million is actually being spent on this year? How is that accounted for?

[Marie-Josée Thivierge]

Actually, the amount in the report on plans and priorities was forecasting that we could have expenses in these areas, provided Parliament approved the vote. The starting point was the mains, and we had that information in hand, but it was to the extent that we would move forward with additional requests through the supplementary estimates process or Treasury Board central vote. Before Parliament now are a combination of requests that actually don't account for the full amount, because it was a plan at a point in time. At this time, actually, the asks—again, the supplementary estimates and the Treasury Board central votes—are more modest than that particular amount.

One has to remember that the report on plans and priorities is a plan that is informed by what we know, which is essentially our appropriations through the main estimates, but it's also a forecast of what we expect might happen. At that time, to repeat what I said earlier, we had planned that there might be some initiatives that would move forward through supplementary estimates (A), (B), or (C), but also that we'd be securing some funding through Treasury Board central votes for things like severance payouts, parental leave, collective agreement adjustments, operating budget carry-forward and so on.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

If I understand that, at the time that the plans and priorities part gets written, you had plans to spend $90 million on those kinds of things.

[Marie-Josée Thivierge]

On those kinds of things, yes.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Those plans have now changed.

[Marie-Josée Thivierge]

They're slightly more modest.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

What are they now?

[Marie-Josée Thivierge]

At the moment they represent about $63 million. That is a combination of our carry forward, under vote 25, from last year to this year; an amount, under Treasury Board vote 15, for compensation to offset collective agreement increases; as well as $23 million, out of vote 30, pay list, to cover parental and maternity leave and cessation of services and employment.

It's a reduced amount in the order of about $63.12 million at this time.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Taking all of that into account, what does that mean in actual staff? You've said that FTEs are going to be steady over the next three years.

[William F. Pentney]

Yes.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

I take it that none of that counts for staff severances, then?