Justice Committee on June 5th, 2018

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Given that it's a federal responsibility entirely, these immigration and refugee matters, is it the Government of Canada's view that it should be 100% funded by the various legal aid programs across the country or is there a cost-sharing even for immigration and refugee legal aid?

[Johanne Bernard]

There's a cost-sharing amount, yes.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

That seems to me to be inappropriate given that it's driven entirely by federal decisions, yet the legal aid plans have to pick up a portion of that. I guess that's a political decision, not a funding issue.

[Nathalie Drouin]

If I may add to that, we have different legal aid systems across the country. It depends on the level of services that each province is ready to offer their respective immigrants.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I have one more question on a totally different matter, if I may. I concede at the outset that this may not be an appropriate question within your bailiwick, although I did look at the departmental plan for the current year and it talks about your responsibility and legislative services particularly for constitutional matters.

As you may know, the Supreme Court of Canada has frequently said that privacy is a quasi-constitutional right in this country. Dr. David Flaherty, who was probably Canada's leading expert on privacy and data protection, has written about our 35-year-old Privacy Act claiming that the act is “tantamount to a cart horse struggling to keep up with technologies approaching warp speed”. The Internet hadn't even been invented let alone global positioning systems, biometrics, etc. How can the government not take this on as a priority for legislative reform explicitly given its quasi-constitutional nature?

[Nathalie Drouin]

I cannot answer for the politicians for sure. What I would like to say is that of course at the department we do study what other countries are doing to make sure that their private system evolves taking into account digital rights, for example. This is the work we are undertaking right now at the department.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Can I ask you explicitly, therefore, whether there is a reform of the 35-year-old Privacy Act under way at this time?

[Nathalie Drouin]

What I can tell you is that of course we are taking into account all of the evolution in terms of digital rights as I said, and if there is any appetite any time to bring a reform, we'll be prepared to propose and give recommendations to decision-makers.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rankin.

We've now finished our two rounds of questions. Is there any member who wishes to ask another question?

Mr. Picard.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Good afternoon and welcome to the committee, everyone.

Switching gears, I'm going to turn to the issue of fraud.

In the last budget, the government introduced measures on remediation agreements, a Canadian version of the deferred prosecution agreements in the U.S. The measures seem to be causing some confusion in the market, and the media coverage may be confusing as well. People think the legislation is all about getting rid of corporate penalties and giving companies a get-out-of-jail card.

Originally, what problems was the government trying to fix with this legislation? Was it the result of the Jordan decision and the excessive delays in the investigation of financial crime? Conversely, did the legislation seek swifter co-operation so that the innocent employees of these companies could keep working in their fields?

[Nathalie Drouin]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Picard.

These measures did not come about in response to the delays in the criminal justice system. Rather, the measures stem from the government's desire to hold corporations accountable for wrongdoing and, above all, to prevent further wrongdoing. The government also wanted to protect victims by allowing for restitution and compensation for harm suffered because of financial crimes. Furthermore, it was important for the government to protect employees who did not engage in the financial wrongdoing of their employer by providing them with court protection. Any remediation agreements that are negotiated will have to be approved by the court.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Do these agreements, or measures, apply only to companies that have contracts with the government, or do they apply to everyone in the market?

[Nathalie Drouin]

The measures apply to all companies in the marketplace, not just those that commit crimes against the government.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you, Mr. Picard.

Are there any further questions?

We have to go and vote, but first, I would like to thank all the justice officials for being here.

I want to say what a great job you are doing, and I know that all the committee members certainly appreciate what you do for us and Canadians.

[Nathalie Drouin]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We want to thank the committee members, as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Now we'll go to the votes on the main estimates.

First, let me ask, is there unanimous consent that I group them all together instead of voting separately on eight or nine items, or would you prefer that we vote separately? Is there consent to group?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Okay, and they will be carried on division.

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS SUPPORT SERVICE OF CANADA

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$55,556,354

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$19,854,487

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

COURTS ADMINISTRATION SERVICE

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$66,233,161

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$236,419,587

Vote 5—Grants and contributions..........$391,765,319

(Votes 1 and 5 agreed to on division)

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR FEDERAL JUDICIAL AFFAIRS

Vote 1—Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs – Operating expenditures..........$8,064,447 Vote 5—Canadian Judicial Council – Operating expenditures..........$2,039,412

(Votes 1 and 5 agreed to on division)

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$162,190,770

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$24,520,525

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

Shall the chair report the main estimates to the House, less the amounts granted in interim supply?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.