:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm pleased to appear before the members of the committee to answer questions regarding the main estimates in areas that fall under my jurisdiction as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. I'm pleased as well to be joined today by William Pentney, the deputy minister and deputy attorney general, as well as Daniel Schnob, the chief financial officer.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Justice has the responsibility of supporting the finest justice system in the world and making it as fair and accessible and efficient as possible.
[Translation]
Part of the support provided to the justice system consists in restoring Canadians' confidence in that system. That is a high priority for our government.
[English]
We thank the Department of Justice for assisting our government in holding criminals accountable and putting victims first, protecting our children, and making Canada's justice system more efficient.
Our government began by establishing tougher penalties for a range of crimes related to everything from white-collar crime and identity theft to street racing, auto theft, and elder abuse. We also pass laws that acknowledge the rights of victims and law-abiding Canadians.
The Tackling Violent Crime Act toughened the sentences for criminals who use guns, raised the age of protection, and made it easier to keep dangerous, violent, and repeat offenders behind bars.
The Truth in Sentencing Act eliminated the practice of double-time reductions in the sentence of criminals for time served before their trial, except in exceptional circumstances.
The Safe Streets and Communities Act eliminated house arrest for serious and violent crimes, toughened sentences for drug dealers, and increased penalties for criminals who commit sexual offences against children. This legislation also addressed the issue of violent young offenders and eliminated pardons for serious crimes like sexual offences against children.
Most recently, the Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act came into force on March 11, 2013. This legislation clarifies the rules related to citizen's arrest, defence of property and persons, and expands the existing power to make a citizen's arrest in circumstances when it is not feasible for a police officer to make the arrest.
Our government's reforms have also helped the victims to play a more significant role in our criminal justice system through enhanced funding of the federal victims strategy, among other things.
Perhaps no better project illustrates the value of the victims strategy than the child advocacy centres initiative. So far, child advocacy centres have been funded in 17 cities or municipalities across Canada, and another four projects are currently in various stages of development.
At each centre, a team of professionals helps young victims and witnesses and their families to cope with the trauma they've experienced and to navigate the criminal justice system and ultimately build the public's faith in the system.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, we have made significant progress in increasing Canadians' confidence in our justice system, but there is still much more work to be done.
[English]
As the said recently:
Despite years of unceasing effort, there remain many areas requiring determined action in our criminal justice system.... When it comes to keeping our streets and communities safe, we will not rest, for there is much more to be done.
As we implement the next phase of our plan for safe streets and communities, we will continue to focus on tackling crime, victims' rights, and a fair and efficient justice system. We will make additional progress in these three areas.
First, we will take further steps to tackle crime by holding violent criminals accountable, particularly those who commit sexual offences against children. Accordingly, we will be introducing comprehensive legislation later this year to crack down on criminals who commit sexual offences against children and those who continue to violate their conditions while at large.
Second, we plan to further enhance the rights of victims of crime. We intend to bring forward legislation to implement a victims' bill of rights, which will entrench victims' rights in a single law at the federal level.
The third key is ensuring the efficiency of our justice system, for example, by aiming to make the bail and extradition regimes more effective and efficient. As we move forward, our government will build on our successes to make additional progress in ensuring that Canadians have safe streets and communities in which to live.
To conclude, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my thanks and appreciation to you and to your committee members for the important work that you do. The funding that the Department of Justice has received has brought results for Canadians, and I will continue to do my utmost to ensure that these funds will continue to be spent wisely as we continue with our plan for safe streets and communities, and in creating a fair, relevant, accessible justice system that reflects Canadian values.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
I'm a bit surprised to hear you're happy with that budget. If I were Minister of Justice, with everything that you stated, with all the bills that are in front of Parliament, I'd be a bit scared. What I see in Justice is a decline in your budget. In certain aspects it's going to hurt. I'm not too sure it's going to be positive. You're a good cheerleader for the government; I'll give you points for that.
My question is as such. I'll just take, for example,
[Translation]
the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Recently, I was reading the office's 2012-13 Report on Plans and Priorities. I expect 2013-2014 to be fairly similar.
In 2011-2012, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions had $141.5 million. In 2012-2013—the expiring fiscal year—expenditures totaled $156.3 million, which included the additional budgets allocated during the year. For 2013-2014, $144.2 million is projected. That is almost equivalent to the actual expenditures from 2012-2013.
However, the Director of Public Prosecutions says that his organization's workload is increasing by roughly 2.5% a year. His office receives a huge number of requests for the services of lawyers who prosecute criminal cases throughout the country and crown prosecutors who enforce the vast majority of federal laws. You can't tell us that you are happy to see the budget reduced to this level or—after telling us about the great measures the government is implementing in the area of youth criminal justice—to see that the government is also cutting over $30 million from the grant budget for young offenders programs. It seems to me that the government is contradicting itself.
You may be happy with the bills you are introducing, but when it comes to walking the talk, I am not sure your budget is in line with your government's ambitions in terms of law and order.
:
Thank you very much, again.
I'm pleased. I think I'm picking up that you agree and support expenditures in the area of public prosecution and support expenditures in the area of justice.
The main estimates that you have before you indicate that the estimate is $162 million. Again, we have been supportive of the public prosecution office. In fact, it was this government that set it up, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, we are very careful with the expenditure of money, but we have made a major commitment to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
As I indicated to you, we in fact set up the office. I'd ask you to go through the details of this and we'll all be awaiting the results of the budget tomorrow.
:
I'm very pleased to do so, Mr. Wilks, and thank you for your contributions and the interest that you've taken in this issue, as well as many others in the criminal justice field.
When we had a look at the laws with respect to self-defence, they appeared, I think, to all reasonable individuals that they were out of date. Quite frankly, an analysis of that would show that in fact the main wording, and there were some changes over the years, was brought in, in 1840, in the colony of Canada West; in fact, it was Upper Canada at the time, before it became Canada West.
When you looked at it and you saw how complicated it looked, it was time to review that so that people would know what it is they are able to do to protect themselves, their families, and their property. That's exactly what the bill has done. In addition, we clarified the provisions with respect to a citizen's arrest, so that an individual has a reasonable period of time to apprehend someone they see who is committing a crime against them.
Both of these, I can tell you Mr. Wilks, have been well received. Again, much of the analysis sometimes is on how much this costs. Once you clarify the law so people know what it is they can do and what they can't do, the justice system works better for everyone. It's in everyone's interest. On both those counts, we have made improvements to the laws.
A little over a week ago, I was very pleased to be in Toronto to present Mr. Chen with a copy of the bill that his problems helped initiate.
Again, it's been well received, and it was an idea whose time had come. I'm very pleased and proud that the government got behind that as quickly as it did and we got it passed.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Minister, for appearing before us once again.
I appreciate that the Department of Justice has to bear its share with regard to certain cost-cutting approaches, but I want to ask you about three approaches on which I'm querying the judgment.
The first is a decrease of $5 million from the sunsetting of the funding for the initiative in support of access to justice in both official languages. In my view, this is an important initiative on both a symbolic level and a substantive level. Coming at a time that in Quebec we see Bill 14 itself prejudicing minority rights, it's almost inappropriate with respect to the federal government being involved in this kind of cost-cutting measure.
:
Again, we were all bound by budgetary constraints, across the board. I'm pleased that we've made permanent the funding of $141 million that is being transferred to the provinces for youth services funding programs. That's the largest transfer, quite frankly, from the Department of Justice.
That being said, as you are probably aware, we have made a number of commitments at the federal level to directly get involved with victims funding, starting with the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. There are millions of dollars going into the guns, gangs and drugs component of the youth justice fund. There is the drug treatment component of the youth justice fund, the intensive rehabilitation, custody, and supervision program. All of these are federal initiatives that go toward supporting victims of crime.
I had the opportunity in question period today to mention that there are record levels of money being transferred to the provinces. The provinces aren't getting any less money. Indeed, over the life of this government it's increased approximately 50%, up more than $20 billion. Again, we're transferring more money every year to the provinces, and it goes to those areas of responsibility that are provincial. One of them, the administration of justice, for the most part is paid for by the provinces.
I am among those who are quite pleased to see each year this increased commitment and this increased transfer to the provinces.
I'm very happy to be here with you today, Minister, because I think sometimes we forget how much has been done in making sure that we have a system that stands behind both victims and law-abiding Canadians. I think it's good for us sometimes to stop and take a look at what's been done, but as you noted in your opening statement, Minister, there still is a lot of work that needs to be carried out.
Specific to that, in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla, in the 1990s and 2000s there were some very high-profile cases that alarmed a lot of people in my riding. When the and you were in Burnaby announcing that there had been some legislation tabled regarding the not criminally responsible, certainly I received a lot of input from people in my riding, and very supportive feedback.
That being said, Minister, I think just as Mr. Wilks mentioned about the coming into force of the Citizen’s Arrest and Self-defence Act, sometimes it's good for us to review what things have been done and what things are going to be worked on.
On February 8, Minister, you introduced Bill , the not criminally responsible reform act. The introduction of this legislation is part of our government's plan for safe streets and communities, which is one of the four priorities the has identified.
How will this legislation ensure that not criminally responsible accused people who are found too dangerous to release are no longer a threat to their victims or to Canadian communities? Minister, I'd like your analysis on that, please, if you wouldn't mind.
:
I was very pleased to introduce that bill. As you pointed out, I was pleased to join with the in meeting with a number of victims, as you remember, of course, as you yourself were there that day.
I think this brings forward some needed changes to the whole area. We made it very clear that we're coming up with, among other things, a high-risk category that will be determined by the courts. We're talking about a relatively small number of violent individuals, or individuals who have been involved with very violent activities. Again, this in no way compromises their rights or their abilities to get treatment for what they suffer from, but that being said, we want to make sure that people maintain confidence in the system and that we properly take victims into consideration.
With that legislation, one of the components that you will see is that we'll do a better job of informing victims as to what's happening, in giving the board the ability to set parameters, when the time comes, if and when an individual is released, so that the victims are better able to know what's happening and better able to cope with the situation.
If you have a look at the legislation we have brought forward, this has been a consistent theme of what we've done, taking into consideration who the victims are, how good a job we're doing representing their interests. You'll remember the bill on white-collar crime. We made it a little more user friendly in terms of victims making an application for restitution. This was in no way an attempt to take over provincial jurisdiction with respect to lawsuits that can arise from transactions that have gone very wrong in this area. We're not saying that. We're saying that victims need one more way to access the system and try to get some justice.
What we're doing in the not criminally responsible reform act with respect to victims, what we do in the various pieces of legislation that we have brought forward, is consistent with that theme, to make sure that victims and their concerns are at the forefront of our criminal justice system, or in the system of the not criminally responsible, to make sure that their interests are looked after. We owe that to them. Again, those are the individuals I meet with on a regular basis across this country. They're consistent in the sense that they like the direction we are going in, and they encourage our continuing along this route. This is one more step in that direction.
Welcome again to the minister and the officials. It's good to see you back before us.
Minister, in your remarks you were clear that the government has been very committed to an aggressive justice agenda, and from this side of the House we don't disagree with you on that. In fact, if you take into consideration the bill you were just talking about, it started from the NDP with the Lucky Moose story where the member for Olivia Chow, put it before the House. So we're on the same page in some areas. In some other areas, of course we'll have philosophical differences.
One of the things that comes to mind is we're living in a stagnant economy right now. I'm not going to point fingers. I'm not going to seek to blame, but it's a reality, so the question that comes to mind that follows on what Madame Boivin was talking about is it looks like we're facing a kind of across-the-board adjustment or cuts. When you look at where you believe things are situated, are there areas you would be giving extra consideration to if you had the opportunity?
What I'm really leading up to is if you've had an effective justice agenda where you put a number of folks behind bars, then we have to have an agenda for rehabilitation to ensure that when they come out they will go back into society as productive members.
I am just curious about whether we can expect that to become a priority one day soon.
:
That being said, I've very much appreciated some of the areas into which we have moved and in which we continue to assist.
I mentioned the child advocacy centres. It wasn't just a coincidence that I put that in. On my travels across this country I heard about this concept and a description of what these child advocacy centres do. They're one-stop places in a child friendly atmosphere where there are all the services for a child who has been sexually exploited. The services come to the child as opposed to the child going everywhere else.
I may have indicated to you, and I certainly have to others, that I remember hearing about this in Edmonton. I thought it was an excellent idea. I was pleased to hear that one opened in St. Catharines, which is next door to my constituency. I remember visiting it and frankly it was just after I'd heard about the one in Edmonton. When I asked how they were financing it and how they did it, they told me they were getting funding from police services and some of the municipalities and that there were charitable donations, but that there was no funding at the federal or provincial levels.
So I was very pleased, and I have said to my colleague how pleased I am, that in two of his recent budgets he's included funding for child advocacy centres. Again, these are steps forward. Somebody could make the argument that these are generally provincial services that are provided, but I'm pleased that the federal government has done that.
I indicated the different funds to you as well and said that we have been supportive of these. I did mention the national anti-drug strategy, for instance. All of these are meant to get the message out to people to not get involved with this kind of activity and that if they do get involved with it, we want to help.
If the were here, he would indicate to you that tens of millions of dollars go towards assisting individuals with mental health issues in the federal penitentiary system. I'm supportive of that, because some day those individuals will be released, so you want them to get the treatment and the help they need. I know that's a priority for my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, and certainly among the issues within my purview, these are a priority as well.
Thank you for the question.
Thank you, Minister, for being here today. It's much appreciated.
I too was getting a little excited when I heard my colleagues across the way indicating their forthcoming support for all of our legislative agenda when it comes to criminal justice.
I do want to remind Mr. Marston and others that it's not just about the incident that happened in Trinity—Spadina in Toronto. These kinds of issues, when it comes to self-defence and to protecting one's property, have happened all across the country. You may recall that I have spoken to you about incidents that happened in my constituency when a citizen was awakened in the middle of the night and went out to defend his property and ended up being charged and had higher penalties than the three people who came onto his property and attempted to deprive him of his property. He used some force to try to prevent that and to secure his property again and initially ended up facing higher penalties. I'm glad that it was appealed and some common sense was applied and a semblance of justice was brought back. I want to thank you on behalf of that family and all of the constituents who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for his legal defence fund in order to bring a sense of justice and to make it clearer for the police and the courts to better interpret what self-defence and the defence of one's property actually are. It's absolutely wonderful. Thank you for your leadership on that.
You mentioned you heard of some issues in Edmonton and so on. One of the things I like about our government is how proactive we are at engaging people, whether in budget consultations or other types of round tables.
I had a number of round tables in my riding dealing with justice issues. Up in Lindale and in remote rural areas we have a lot of cases of breaking and entering. Folks are very frustrated with the years of neglect by our justice system in actually addressing some of the serious consequences of property crime and so on. We heard loud and clear from there that a lot of crimes are even going unreported simply because they're so frustrated with the weak penalties that people used to get traditionally and the revolving door and so on.
I wonder what other things, notwithstanding the agenda you've laid out for us with your three initiatives, you have been hearing at the round tables you've conducted throughout Canada as our Minister of Justice.
:
Again, these have been very helpful to me, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Calkins, for your interest in this area. It's much appreciated. I know how supportive you are of the measures that we have taken.
You hear different perspectives from different parts of the country. Sometimes you hear about different crimes, and you hear less about it in some other parts of the country. What is consistent, though, are the meetings I have and the input I get from victims in this country. I'll give you a good example of that.
I heard from many victims across this country about what it was like when the individual who murdered a member of their family came up for the possibility of early parole at 15 years.
I remember introducing the legislation in Parliament. At the scrums that sometimes take place here, I was asked a legitimate question, I guess: do you think that by getting rid of the possibility of early parole people will stop committing first degree murder? I said, “That's not what I'm saying with respect to the introduction of the legislation; it's the hope of everybody that nobody would commit first degree murder, but I do know this for sure: we will be reducing victimization in this country.” I have been told at these round tables by victims that when that 15-year period rolls around, they're victimized again. They're victimized again in wondering and worrying whether the individual is going to be back on the street.
You're familiar with that section that is now gone, thankfully, from the Criminal Code. It didn't stop there: it was at 17 years, 19 years, 21 years, 23 years. For these people, they tell me, it never ended. It just was on and on. That came out of those discussions with them. I was completely confident, as I am to this day, that by getting rid of that, we reduced the victimization in this country. Those are the people that I worry about. Those are the people that you worry about, I know, the people who have been victimized and have found themselves in this position. You are supportive of those measures that reduce the possibility of further victimization.
The Chair: You have one minute, Mr. Calkins.
:
I've indicated that we're going to move forward in the area of better protecting children from those individuals who would sexually exploit them and those individuals who would attack them. I've indicated that we are going to move forward in that direction.
As you indicated, putting together a victims' bill of rights, compiling those areas that are there to protect victims, bringing them together and clarifying those areas in federal legislation I think will be a big help, just as when we put the form into the Criminal Code with respect to victims who have suffered at the hands of white-collar crime, and who have had their money taken away from them. We made it easier for them to find out where to go. This is consistent with what we have been saying.
A victims' bill of rights is consistent with that and makes it easier for the victims to find out what it is they can do, or what's available to them. That's the thinking and the philosophy behind this, Mr. Chairman, and that's the direction we're going in.
Minister, thank you for joining us today.
I wanted to ask you about the $5-million cut to the funding for the Initiative in Support of Access to Justice in Both Official Languages.
We know that many cuts have been made in the public service. We know that was done to the detriment of bilingualism. We know that was also done to the detriment of francophones' right to work in their language. We know that, especially in certain departments, requests are being made to reduce the number of documents that have to be translated. Francophones are also being asked to draft documents in English. It's a bit sad to see this happening, especially since today is the Journée internationale de la francophonie—the international day of la Francophonie.
I know that a budget will be tabled tomorrow. The will decide what that budget will contain. However, as , what do you think about the cuts made in the area of access to justice in both official languages?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for being here.
Minister, my background is in education. For 18 years I served as a teacher, a vice-principal, and a principal. I can tell you, from meeting my colleagues at many conferences, that it was very frustrating for educators across Canada to know that many of their students were accessing provincial services, from justice, from health, from community services, as well as education, and these were particularly victims of crime. There were all these gaps in the system. In fact, one hand didn't know what the other hand was doing. They wouldn't even know sometimes that a particular child was receiving services or interventions from another department, even though both were going on simultaneously.
You and I had the experience of doing a round table together recently in Halifax. We heard loud and clear the positive impact that child advocacy centres were having on the lives of children. I know this is something for which you, personally, have taken the initiative in supporting the funding.
I'm wondering if you could elaborate on what you, as the Minister of Justice, have seen as far as positive impact is concerned and why you believe we should continue to place a high priority on funding these centres.
:
I've been told over the years, going back to the period of time that I practised law in the early 1980s, how difficult it is in the system for the children who come forward with the allegation that they have been abused. You'd often hear stories about people who had to visit the police station, and they were visiting the crown attorney, and they had to have medical services. On all of this, people were unanimous that being involved with something like this would further hurt the child in terms of traumatizing the child. When I heard for the first time this idea that you could have a centre where all those services are brought to the child, it immediately made sense. Most people would agree, regardless of where they are on many of the issues that face us in the justice area, that this is a good idea.
In the years since, I've had a look at this. There are quite a few of these centres in the United States. Quite frankly, the U.S. is further ahead in terms of the development of these centres. It concerned me when I visited the one in St. Catharines that you want as much as possible for the funding to be there, to be available for this, because this is a good idea. They go out of their way when you go into one of these centres. You're aware of them because of our discussions. They are in fact child friendly. They make it as comfortable as possible, not just for the child but for the parent or the guardian who is there with the child. It works on every level.
I was very pleased that the federal government has gotten into this area and that we have provided money through a couple of budgets now for these centres. This is money well spent. Reaching out to the most vulnerable people in our justice system, which has to be children who have been abused, is very positive.
It is certainly my hope that right across this country people will explore this. Again it's not just a question of waiting for government funding. I've been pleased, over the years, to see private interests move forward to try to get these centres going. I've been pleased to approve feasibility studies for people looking into building one of these centres.
I remember visiting with our colleague in northern Ontario. One size doesn't fit all. It doesn't necessarily have to be one building in one place. There can be adaptations of that, but the main and important concept is to make it as child friendly as possible and to do what we can to bring those services to the child. These are very important.
This is something you're going to see in this country for a long time to come. I appreciate we're only relatively recently getting into this area, but this will be a staple, this will be a component right across Canada for dealing with children who have, unfortunately, become victimized. Again it is certainly consistent with what we're saying, about doing what we can to help victims. It is one of the things we can all be very proud of.
:
The annual funding, Mr. Jacob, will be $141.7 million. Just so you know, this is permanent, built-in funding that is not part of the sunsetting. It goes hand in hand, quite frankly, with the other areas where the federal government reaches out on its own, quite apart from....
That $141 million is the biggest transfer this department has, and again, that's quite apart from the overall increase that the Minister of Finance and our colleagues transfer to the provinces each year.
That being said, I've been very proud of and very pleased with the initiatives we have taken in reaching out to victims and young people. I mentioned the guns, gangs, and drugs component of the youth justice fund, the drug treatment component of the youth justice fund, and the intensive rehabilitation, custody, and supervision program. All of these have received millions of dollars of funding from the federal government.
I think they're good investments, because they're reaching out to children and young people who have become either involved with the law or unfortunately become addicted. These are the kinds of things we have to have. I'm very pleased with and proud of that. Again, the largest transfer we have is to the provinces. That's one component of the assistance that we give to the provinces.
:
It is the largest transfer that we do have at the federal level.
One of the things that I am pleased about, and I watch for this, quite frankly, in every budget, is I'm pleased to see that the transfers to the provinces have gone up. They have attained record levels. As I indicated, we're up to a $20-billion increase.
I think it was you, Monsieur Jacob, who at one time said to me that we can't be in the business of telling the provinces what to do and what they can't do.
That being said, we know they have important areas of responsibility within the Constitution of this country, whether it be health care, education, or the administration of justice. I've been very pleased that over the years we have steadily increased, to record levels, the amount of money we have given to the provinces. I think they're good investments. I understand that they have important responsibilities within the Constitution, so I've been very supportive of that.
As you indicated, the money we are putting toward victims, victims funds, rehabilitation programs, these are investments as well. I believe they do pay off in the long run. The extent that we help individuals get off drugs or help individuals stay away from drugs, to the extent that we help children who find themselves caught up in the criminal justice system, I believe they're good investments. This is why I have been so supportive of them over the years.
:
We'll call the meeting back to order.
We have officials from the Department of Justice with us. Thank you very much for staying. We have them for 45 minutes.
We do have to vote, ladies and gentlemen—well, we don't have to—but there is an opportunity to vote on the votes that are presented here in the main estimates. That will take no more than five minutes.
Just a reminder that on Monday, we are having our meeting again on Bill . On Monday we hope to do clause-by-clause study of Parm Gill's bill, the bill we were dealing with on Monday, so if you have any amendments, give them to the clerk by Friday. That would be appreciated.
Let's start with Madame Boivin.
Gentlemen, thank you for joining us and spending an enjoyable hour reviewing your budgets with us.
As I told the minister, I think much of the review is totally pointless, as the situation could change tomorrow. However, let's assume that it will remain the same.
I have a few questions for you.
Regarding the federal government's contribution to help the provinces in terms of legal aid, I see that there are no major changes in Main Estimates 2013-2014. That's not where you will be making cuts. However, I don't see any increases either. I know that we are going through a period of fiscal restraint in many areas. That is what the government is saying. However, I am also very aware of the extremely urgent nature of the situation. This issue has been raised unanimously in all federal, provincial and territorial meetings between justice ministers. I even think that the knows about the huge needs in legal aid and about the fact that we should work on improving that situation.
Regarding your department's proposal, I understand that the access to justice issues—in areas such as legal aid—will not be resolved in 2013-2014. In short, the federal partner will not take care of this.
Have I understood the document properly?
:
Thank you for the question.
Mr. Chair, it's true that there hasn't been a large increase in the federal contribution in this area, but $120 million will nevertheless be set aside for legal aid in this year's main estimates. That includes $11.5 million in temporary funding for legal aid—for immigration and the refugee situation—with an additional $500,000.
Although this is not a huge increase, it's not entirely true that no money has been added, as temporary funding has been allocated. That was a way to recognize the many needs in the area of immigration and refugee issues. Given the legal reforms and related requests, the government will allocate $11.5 million and an additional $500,000.
:
Thank you, Madame Boivin.
I am going to ask the next set of questions. I'm taking a Conservative slot for this.
This is my first time reviewing the estimates for Justice, so I'm excited about it. Not too many people get too excited about it.
My questions are technical in nature, just so I understand what's going on.
I do like the new format of the estimates. I appreciate that. I understand the 2011-12, in the mains, votes 1 and 5.... But the estimates to date, I cannot add up anywhere. I looked at supplementary (C)s. I cannot get to the same number.
I want to know what makes up the estimates to date. The numbers do not correlate.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the previous round when I only got one question, I was able to ask the minister about the wisdom of reductions in three areas: access to justice in both languages fund, youth justice services, and the aboriginal justice strategy fund, and the minister responded. Now I'm going to look at the other side of the ledger, namely projected increases. I think that demonstrates that the cuts need not be uniform, that they are in effect a judgment call.
I support this first increase, but that's $14.4 million for the renewal of funding for the delivery of immigration and refugee legal aid. I have no problem with that. I know why it's done, and I support it. What about the overall federal contribution to legal aid services for all Canadians, on both the criminal and the civil sides? Has funding been increased or decreased?
[Translation]
There are about 5,000 employees across Canada. In last year's economic action plan, we promised to cut 330 positions. We are using a combination of measures to achieve that goal.
We are improving our computer system. Consequently, we have reduced the number of people in charge of bill payments, since we are a national organization with very large and highly active regional offices. We have merged the positions from the two centres, and we will be able to use the computer system better, instead of transferring all the paperwork from one office to the other. All that will be done electronically.
So we have reduced the number of people and created two centres of expertise—in Ottawa and in Edmonton—to complete the process. We have merged a few legal services in departments. There were a few small legal services. We have eliminated one management level and combined a few groups that were working in the same area. We decided to create a few centres of expertise in order to provide common services within the government more efficiently. Instead of having many lawyers who do a small part of their work in a specific area, we will create a few centres of expertise so as to have fewer people doing the work more often. They will handle cases and provide advice more efficiently.
Those are some examples. Services are being merged, and the computer system is being utilized better. Those are some of the changes in the way we practise law. That's being done through centres of expertise, mergers or some other reductions. We're talking about effective internal measures.