Evidence of meeting #44 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was lawyers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Grewal Liberal Brampton East, ON
Yes, if the committee doesn't mind.
Mr. Thomas, is there a role model that Canada can look towards in terms of legal aid funding? Does any country do it better than us?
4:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Law Commission of Ontario
First, I would commend Ontario. Around the world, Ontario is considered to have a very good legal aid program. It's not perfect. It's good because it provides a comprehensive range of services: criminal law, family law, and poverty law. That's unique, to have that constellation of services. It uses a mixed model, with private lawyers, staff lawyers, and clinics. That's another best practice.
Where Ontario falls short, broadly speaking, is in terms of financial eligibility. Until recently, financial eligibility thresholds in Ontario were less than half the low-income cut-off. So in many respects, Ontario is a high-water mark.
Other jurisdictions that have good legal aid programs include some of the states in Australia. The U.K. for a long time was considered to have the Cadillac model of legal aid. It was very generously funded, much better funded than anything in Canada, the United States, or elsewhere.
There isn't one jurisdiction that's perfect. There are jurisdictions that have really good parts, and if you pick and choose between the different parts, you'd have something that's quite comprehensive and successful.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Thomas, thank you for really going into quite a lot of detail about the points you want to see included with a national access to justice strategy. I think your testimony is going to serve this committee really well in formulating its report and recommendations, and of course, you reference some reports that I know our analysts are certainly going to use.
I want to concentrate specifically on the area of family law, civil law. We've had a lot of testimony at this committee, a lot of presentations of the problems of having the money bundled up in a Canada social transfer, and there's a lot of finger-pointing between the two levels of government about whether it's funded or not.
Keeping in mind that the ultimate aim of this committee's project is to formulate recommendations to the federal government, I just want to hear how you envision this reform happening. We've heard concerns that the provinces might not like the federal government meddling in what are provincial affairs, but there is a template. We have the Canada health transfer, which allows the provinces to still have jurisdiction over health policy, but they have to meet several conditions if they want the federal money. Is that something that you would use as a template?
4:30 p.m.
Executive Director, Law Commission of Ontario
Yes, I think that makes sense.
That said, it's very important to ensure that there is local, regional, or provincial priority-setting as well. Like other witnesses, I am completely in favour of the idea of national priorities and national benchmarks, but there has to be a lot of room for local interpretation and local priority-setting, because there are a lot of unmet needs.
Frankly, I don't think the federal government's Department of Justice, notwithstanding their skills, has the ability to go to rural Saskatchewan and say, “You should be doing it this way,” or to downtown Toronto to say, “You have to be providing this”. I think there's a real benefit in having local decision-makers establish local priorities within a national framework or, as you might call it, a national aspiration.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
4:30 p.m.
Executive Member, Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
Actually, it would probably be easier and more useful to have the ability to track the money. Transfers are made on the immigration side, but it's somewhat challenging to figure out what happens to that money and where it goes. The federal government could certainly have a specified number of conditions tied to funding.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To follow up on Mr. MacGregor's question for Mr. Thomas, we certainly have heard a lot of testimony about the fact there is a major gap in most provinces in terms of legal aid's coverage of family law matters.
You've talked about national standards. Mr. MacGregor raised the issue of the Canada social transfer and blocked funding. You made reference to the Cromwell report. You've noted that it was a fairly comprehensive review of family law and legal aid, with some concrete steps that could be taken, but you said that it wasn't necessarily complete. You didn't elaborate on what is missing. Maybe you could elaborate on whether there's anything to add to the Cromwell report and anything specific that we or the federal government could do to deal with this gap.
4:30 p.m.
Executive Director, Law Commission of Ontario
The Cromwell report is really good on civil and family law.
What it doesn't address in detail are the issues around poverty law. Poverty law advocates say that the Cromwell report is really good within the parameters of its scope, but it doesn't address a lot of important poverty law issues.
Another comment on Cromwell is that it doesn't talk a lot about rural and remote services, which obviously is an important issue in a country such as Canada.
These are not fundamental critiques of Cromwell. We just wish that Cromwell had gone a bit further to address these additional issues.
In terms of how the federal government or a federal strategy might address poverty law, for example, I think Cromwell is a good start, and the Cromwell process is a good start. There are a lot of people across the country who do poverty law, who know a lot about poverty law, who are aware of what the needs are, and who I think would be helpful in terms of developing a strategy.
From the perspective of access to justice, I would say, just apropos of the timing, that the re-establishment of the court challenges program is a very good thing, because that's another means of achieving access to justice through test-case litigation, as opposed to having to replicate the services on the ground over and over again.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Do other members have questions?
I have one short question for anyone on the panel who might be familiar with the Australian system. Mr. Thomas referenced it.
In terms of the federal state agreement that exists in Australia and the memorandum of understanding, is that a template that you would consider we should look toward in Canada, where there are also mixed jurisdictions and there is mixed funding?
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Law Commission of Ontario
Yes, although as has been said at the committee before, I think, it's early days in the history of that agreement, so it remains to be seen how it will turn out. At first blush, it seems like a good model to me. It seems like a good start.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
February 9th, 2017 / 4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I have a question for Maître Faribault, who has a long experience with Quebec legal aid.
Quebec, of course, has a different tradition in civil law. I wonder if that presents unique challenges in respect to legal aid and legal aid funding.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
He asked whether Quebec's tradition of civil law gives rise to any unique issues in terms of legal aid and legal aid funding.
4:35 p.m.
As an Individual
Not really, because poverty law is governed more by specific legislation, which does not interfere with the civil code or the civil French tradition on that. The civil code takes into consideration contracts, and most poor people do not get into complicated contracts or matters like that.
It's more in matters of family law that the Quebec civil code intervenes and is used on a day-to-day basis, versus the Divorce Act that is applied generally around Canada. That is federal. There's a kind of mix-up on that.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you.
I want to thank all of our witnesses today. You gave us really compelling and very interesting testimony.
Your being here is much appreciated.
I would also like to thank the members of the committee and Mr. Grewal for joining us.
The meeting is adjourned.