Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 18 - Evidence - May 8, 2012
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 8, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:30 a.m. to examine the expenditures set out in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013; and in camera for the consideration of a draft report on the potential reasons for price discrepancies in respect of certain goods between Canada and the United States, given the value of the Canadian dollar and the effect of cross-border shopping on the Canadian economy.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance to order.
Honourable senators, before we begin our meeting, I would like to remind you that we are beginning our work tomorrow afternoon while the Senate is sitting, as directed by the Senate, on budget implementation. The meeting will be from 2 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. in room 160-S in Centre Block so that if you have to go back to the Senate chamber, it will be close. That will be government officials on budget implementation over the two days. We are hoping we can get through all the different departments that are impacted by the budget implementation act this week, so we can begin with the outside witnesses next week.
Second, I have some sad news to advise you that our deputy chair, Senator Neufeld, has a medical problem and is not likely to be returning to the Senate until the fall, I would guess, but hopefully sooner. In any event, I wanted you to know that he will not be in attendance until such time as he recovers.
Senator Gerstein: Thank you for your kind words about Senator Neufeld, and our thoughts are certainly with him.
I would like to at this point nominate Senator Larry Smith, who will become a member of this committee, as the deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
The Chair: We do not need a seconder in committees. It has been moved that Senator Larry Smith be elected as the deputy chair of this committee. All those in favour signify by saying, "Aye."
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contrary if any? Motion carried. We will expect Senator Smith, who indicated he is on his way but was not anticipating this change of events. He will be joining us as the meeting progresses.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, this morning we are going to resume our study of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year 2012-13.
[English]
The Chair: This morning we are pleased to welcome officials from the Department of Justice. Honourable senators will recall that we have been trying to proceed, and this is the beginning of dealing with the Department of Justice in a broader sense. We are dealing with the Main Estimates, but we also want to be advised of the various means of controlling finances and expenditures within a department, including all of the different steps during the year, plan and priorities, and looking at public accounts after the event. From time to time we will be seeing Justice to get the broader picture as well, and who is in the department who helps with respect to expenditures.
Today we are starting by looking at the Main Estimates. I understand that Mr. Donald Piragoff will have a brief introductory statement. He is the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, for the Department of Justice Canada. He is accompanied by Mr. Daniel Schnob, Chief Financial Officer, and Mr. Joel Oliver, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Management Sector.
Mr. Piragoff, you have the floor.
[Translation]
Donald Piragoff, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice Canada: Mr. Chairman, thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee.
We are pleased to appear before the members of the committee to answer questions regarding the Main Estimates in areas that fall under the Department of Justice.
I would just like to start with some introductory comments to the committee. The Department of Justice fulfills three distinctive roles within the Government of Canada in order to ensure a fair, relevant and accessible justice system that reflects Canadian values.
[English]
First is as a policy department with broad responsibilities for overseeing all matters relating to the administration of justice that fall within the federal domain, such as Aboriginal justice, criminal justice, family justice, access to justice, private international and public international law. The second is as a provider of a range of legal advisory, litigation and legislative services to government departments and agencies. The third is supporting the minister in advising cabinet on all legal matters.
Integral to this, the department maintains a policy and program development capacity in order to fulfill core departmental responsibilities associated with the administration of justice in Canada. In addition, the department supports the government's policy and program priorities related to safety and security. Many of these initiatives are carried out in partnership with federal, provincial, territorial, municipal, international and non-governmental partners, including non-profit and volunteer organizations.
[Translation]
In the past year, a total of nine bills were tabled in Parliament by our minister, three of which received Royal Assent.
[English]
The Department of Justice, like other federal departments, is contributing to efforts to reduce the government's deficit. As announced in Economic Action Plan 2012, Justice will achieve savings of $12.3 million in fiscal years 2012- 13, $60.2 million in 2013-14 and finally, $67.5 million by 2014-15, which represents 10 per cent of the department's A- base.
Budget 2012 also provided additional assistance to victims of crime. On April 23, our minister announced that the government will increase the Victims Fund by $7 million over five years and that the terms and conditions of the Victims Fund have been amended to allow non-governmental groups that serve victims to apply for time-limited operational funding.
The minister has also announced the ongoing funding to the provinces and territories to deliver criminal legal aid for economically disadvantaged adults and youth of $111.9 million annually, public security and anti-terrorism legal aid cases of $2 million annually, and federal funding of $11.5 million for immigration and refugee legal aid. In addition, $1.65 million in funding has been allocated for court-ordered counsel in federal prosecutions, and this amount is for two years, 2012-13 and 2013-14.
As well, the Aboriginal Justice Strategy has been renewed at $12.5 million for one year to fund community-based programs for urban, rural and northern Aboriginal communities, both on and off reserves.
As expressed earlier, the Department of Justice plays an important role in ensuring a fair, relevant and accessible justice system that meets the expectations of Canadians and in serving as the law firm for the Government of Canada.
[Translation]
To deliver its mandate, the department reported in its 2010-11 Departmental Performance Report actual spending of $1 billion, including $429.4 million for justice policies, laws, programs and the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime; $455.5 million for services to government; and $164.7 million for internal services.
[English]
The Department of Justice Canada has net vote authority that allows it to collect revenues from other government departments and agencies for the provision of legal advisory, litigation and legislative services, and to re-spend the revenue collected.
The department's net planned spending, excluding re-spendable revenue, for 2012-13 is expected to decline as cost- containment measures of Budgets 2010 and 2012, and the sunsetting of some of the initiatives, come into effect.
[Translation]
In fiscal year 2012-13, as per the Main Estimates, the department plans to spend $984.5 million, to be offset by Budget 2012 measures that will be reflected in the supplementary estimates.
[English]
To conclude, we would like to thank you for the time provided to make a few opening comments.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I have a number of senators who would like to engage in discussion with you.
Before I go to my list, could you tell us what is included in your A-base? You used that expression, so we should have clarification of that for the record.
Mr. Piragoff: I will ask Daniel Schnob, the CFO, to explain our A-base.
Daniel Schnob, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Justice Canada: Our A-base is basically salaries and operating expenditures. A portion of it is for the delivery of legal services to our clients, which are other government departments and agencies. A large part of our internal services is funded through our A-base, a small portion is funded through revenues, and then the policy side of the house is 100 per cent funded through A-base.
The Chair: Could you give us an example of what might be in your B-base? I am assuming if there is an A-base, there is a B-base.
Mr. Schnob: I do not know if we have a B-base, but A-base is the authorities received from Parliament. Then we have an authority to re-spend revenues; we have an authority to spend up to $290 million of revenues collected again from other government departments and agencies for legal services that we provide to them.
The Chair: The $290 million is a fairly recent change in accounting; is that correct?
Mr. Schnob: We received authority for net vote revenue in 2006 or 2007; I do not remember what year it was. It has been about five years where we have the authority to re-spend the revenue that we collected.
The Chair: Do you need authority on an annual basis to receive revenue from other government departments?
Mr. Schnob: Yes, we need authority to receive and re-spend the revenue. On an annual basis we go to Treasury Board for the authority and for the amount of that authority.
The Chair: I noticed under highlights at page 230 of the Main Estimates, your department, Justice, the amount of $614 million requires approval out of $694 million in your estimated budget. Of that, $614 million needs approval on an annual basis for this particular year, as opposed to the fact that a lot of the departments have a major statutory portion that does not require Parliament's vote. We are advised of the information in the estimates, but Parliament does not vote on it, and the Senate will not be called upon to vote on that. However, in your instance, a high percentage of your funds needed to operate this year come through the Main Estimates.
Mr. Schnob: Yes, our statutory portion is quite small; it is basically employee benefit plans, the minister's salary and motor allowance.
The Chair: I wanted honourable senators to be aware of that. That makes you a little bit different and therefore more relevant from the exercise we are going through at the present time in reviewing the Main Estimates so we can get ready to vote on the supply bill when it comes.
With that clarification, I will go to senators' questions.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Good morning and thank you for being here.
My questions have to do with equity, diversity, women, the Canadian population and how you consult NGOs.
In October 2010, Canada released its action plan for the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions on women and peace and security. It provides a framework for a cohesive whole-of-government approach in support of Canadian and UN efforts to implement these UN resolutions. DFAIT and Justice Canada contributed to the development of the action plan.
Could you confirm what initiatives Justice Canada is undertaking in 2012-13 with respect to the action plan or with respect to projects relating to women and peace and security, and how much money is budgeted for this?
Joel Oliver, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Management Sector, Department of Justice Canada: I will respond to that question. I would like to go back to the office and confirm the details of that and get back to you, if that is possible.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Yes. Could you add, then, what other horizontal initiatives Justice Canada is involved in with DFAIT, DND, CIDA, et cetera?
Mr. Oliver: Absolutely.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Thank you.
My second question is about something on your website called IDEAS, which I will send you a copy of and which you cannot read without a 20-power magnifying glass. Regardless, it is called IDEAS; it is the Integrated Diversity and Equality Analysis Screen. The purpose of this screen is to assess whether any proposed initiative contributes to substantive equality for historically and systematically disadvantaged groups. It poses specific questions that should be addressed by members of your department in reviewing any initiative. Justice Canada plays a central role in reviewing all legislation and advising on all matters of law, as you have already stated.
Could you confirm, then, whether and how this screen is used in cases, or in attempts to design law, and whether the reporting that is done to the government or to the department heads expressly includes analysis and conclusions that are based on this screen? If the screen is not used, how does the department ensure that the substantive equality review is properly undertaken and expressly provided?
One of the reasons I am asking the question is that the former deputy minister said in committee a year ago that gender-based analysis stopped within the department. The reason he gave, which I found absolutely extraordinary, was that more than 50 per cent of the employees were women, and therefore it did not need to happen. In my total experience of life, it is absolutely not true; everyone needs training. That is why I have raised this screen that is on your website.
Mr. Oliver: With respect to gender-based analysis, we still have a gender-based function within the department. I can again provide you more details on how it is structured and how it functions.
With respect to how it meets the test of tabling laws, I will turn it over to Mr. Piragoff.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I am interested in substantive equality, not just spatial.
Mr. Oliver: Absolutely.
Mr. Piragoff: The department has developed a common checklist of questions that need to be answered by officers on a policy file, and it includes things like gender analysis, diversity analysis, impact on Aboriginal populations, et cetera. That document is supposed to be filled out and put on the file that essentially these issues were looked at. There is a common services checklist that policy officers are supposed to run through to ensure they have dealt with this.
In addition, there are protocols for production of cabinet materials. A member of the cabinet also has checklists of various issues that need to be addressed, including things like diversity, equality, et cetera. That is how the issues are addressed.
At one time I understand we did have a dedicated gender analysis unit. That was created a number of years ago to really kick-start the process of ensuring that there was gender equality, but also more important, a culture of respect for gender equality.
To some extent, over the years, a lot of that has been incorporated into our daily work. Over the years, we realized we did not need to have the same amount of resources dedicated to a specific unit within the department, although as Mr. Oliver indicated, we still have a unit that is performing that function. Much of it has been pushed into the department as a whole because we are doing the work on a daily basis.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Here is my problem. I understand there are these checks in the Department of Justice as to whether a GBA has been done or not, but who is looking at what those checks mean? Who is really looking to see whether the substantive equality issue for the disabled or whoever it is has actually been done? If there is not massive training ongoing forever, unfortunately, for the disabled, for Aboriginal people, for women, for any group, then it tends to slip. I want to know what the tests are within the Department of Justice for keeping it up to a standard that Canada would be proud of.
Mr. Piragoff: Actually, the department has been very proactive in all areas of equality. The deputy minister has appointed ADM champions at the senior level. We have a diversity champion, a multicultural champion and a gender champion. Those ADMs are responsible for ensuring there are various programs throughout the department throughout the year in those areas to ensure that there is training, lectures and awareness. We bring in people from outside to provide lectures to our employees from various communities, and we celebrate various days, such as International Women's Day. There is an active movement within the department to actually promote various types of equality.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I appreciate that, but I still want to know what the test is for seeing how rigorously it is applied. It is not enough to go to lectures. Is it the managers doing it or the ADM champions? Who is it that does this?
Mr. Piragoff: There is actually a report that is done, and each manager receives that report a couple of times during the year. It shows a scorecard as to what your levels are in terms of employment of diversity candidates, how many you have in your sector, in your branch, and what your targets are.
Mr. Oliver: If I may, senator, are you asking regarding the organization itself as the Department of Justice or with respect to how we handle legislation?
Senator Nancy Ruth: Both.
Mr. Oliver: With legislation, I will turn to Mr. Piragoff.
Within the department, we have a visible and active employment equity group. As Mr. Piragoff said, several champions are appointed. Awareness is constantly raised. We are quite pleased with the statistics we have been able to accomplish in representation of visible minorities within the department. We go to great lengths to ensure awareness is raised as a department in terms of people's understanding of gender equity and gender-based analysis.
Senator Nancy Ruth: That is not answering my question.
Mr. Oliver: I am sorry, senator.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I understand there is an education program. I understand that you have champions. It is my experience that most departments have similar people, but I can never find out what it means when that check is made. What does that mean? What did they actually do? What lens did they actually go through? How did they use this, or how did they use the lectures? I do not know, and I do not know if it is really a substantive analysis.
Mr. Oliver: Let me undertake to get back to you on that point with as much information as possible.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Yes, give me an example.
Mr. Oliver: We will do that.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Thank you. I will go on second round.
The Chair: I should point out that we will be having the Department of Justice back from time to time, and if it turns out that it would be helpful to have the person or persons who actually do this oversight come and explain that to us, we could work that in. We will wait first for your written reply.
Mr. Oliver: Thank you.
The Chair: I should also point out, Mr. Oliver, that all of the written replies should be sent to the clerk, which will then be circulated to all members of the committee.
Mr. Oliver: I will do that.
Senator Callbeck: Good morning. Thank you for being here. I want to ask you some questions first on legal aid. On page 230, there is a decrease of $14.4 million in that respect. I would have thought that figure would have increased, because once the new mandatory minimum sentences take effect, we will have more people going to trial. I would like to know how the department concluded that a reduction in legal aid was in the best interests of Canadians.
Mr. Piragoff: There actually is not a reduction. It shows a reduction because a certain portion of legal aid funding is permanent funding in our A-base, and a certain portion of funding for legal aid is renewable and must be allocated by Parliament.
In the last fiscal year, a certain portion of the funding, $14.42 million, was to be sunsetted as of March 31, 2012. Therefore, in the Main Estimates, which came out in February before the budget was tabled in March, it shows as a reduction because as of March 31, there will be a reduction, unless the government renews it. As I indicated in my opening remarks, the minister announced last week that the $14.42 million that was to sunset as of March 31 this year was renewed. The money has been renewed for the next two fiscal years.
The Chair: Or will be, once we pass it.
Mr. Piragoff: That is true. It is subject to parliamentary approval. That is why it showed originally as a reduction. The government is proposing to renew it, subject to parliamentary approval.
Senator Callbeck: There will be no increase, just the same amount?
Mr. Piragoff: It will be the same amount, yes.
Senator Callbeck: I would like to know — and maybe you want to get back to the committee on this — how this money is divided between the provinces. What formula is used? I would like to see the figures for each province for the last five years.
I know civil legal aid comes through the social transfer, but does Justice have any involvement in calculating that figure for civil legal aid? Are you involved?
Mr. Piragoff: For civil legal aid, no. That comes through the social transfer, which is handled by the Department of Finance. I understand that amount of money, as a result of previous budget approvals by Parliament, has been increasing yearly.
It is a block transfer to the provinces. How the provinces reallocate the money given to them is their decision. It really becomes a decision of the provincial finance ministers as to how much they allocate to legal aid within their provinces.
Senator Callbeck: With the executive or the people in charge of this legal aid, I assume they are eligible for performance bonuses in 2012 and 2013?
Mr. Piragoff: I am sorry. Who is eligible?
Senator Callbeck: Are they eligible for performance bonuses?
Mr. Piragoff: Senator, I am not sure of whom you are speaking.
Senator Callbeck: The people in charge of the legal aid program.
Mr. Piragoff: In the federal government?
Senator Callbeck: Yes, in Justice.
Mr. Piragoff: Yes, whatever they are. It depends on their classification. Certain classifications are entitled to bonuses if they perform. With other classifications, there are no bonuses; it is simply whatever is negotiated by their union, their collective agreement. It really depends on the classification of the individuals involved.
Senator Callbeck: Maybe you could get back to the committee; I have four different questions that I would like to have answered.
How many Justice Canada employees are eligible for these bonuses in 2012 and 2013? How many were eligible in 2011 and 2012? How many received the performance bonuses in 2011 and 2012? I would also like to know the total amount of performance bonuses Justice Canada and its associated agencies paid to senior executives in 2011 and 2012, as well as Justice Canada's estimate for expected performance bonuses to be paid in 2012 and 2013.
Mr. Piragoff: We can provide that information, senator.
The Chair: Do you understand that to be department-wide as opposed to just legal aid?
Senator Callbeck: I would like to have the legal aid broken out, too. I want the total department and then I would like the figures for the legal aid section.
On page 231, line item "Legal Services to Government," there is an entry of $270 million under the heading "Less: Revenues and Other Reductions." I know that figure has been in previous estimates, but I notice it has grown considerably in the last two years. In 2008-09 it was $178 million and now it is $270 million. What does that figure represent and why has it grown so much?
Mr. Schnob: That figure represents the amount of revenues we collect from government departments and agencies for legal services that are provided to them.
It has been growing. As a matter of fact, pretty well the only growth in Justice Canada has been in that area, and it is largely due to an increase in demand for services from client departments and agencies.
I can give examples around the immigration programs that are being initiated by this government, law and order agendas; all of that has meant that some departments are asking for more legal support, legal advisory and litigation services than they have in the past.
Senator Callbeck: The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada obtained new enforcement responsibilities recently under the anti-spam legislation, but I notice that overall this budget is reduced. Is there any money in here for these added responsibilities, or will that come in the supplementaries?
Mr. Schnob: I do not know. I cannot speak for that office. They would have their own chief operating officer and chief financial officer.
Mr. Piragoff: The Department of Justice is not responsible for the various agencies that are part of the Justice portfolio. They report directly to the Minister of Justice in terms of financial matters. Each of those agencies, whether it be the Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Tribunal, the Privacy Commissioner, are independent of the department. They have their own financial officers. You would have to speak to them with respect to how they run their organizations.
The minister is responsible to Parliament for them, but the Department of Justice has no contact with them other than simply as colleagues. We have no supervisory authority over that department.
The Chair: Can you name them so we have them on the record? At page 227 we have a list of different divisions. Which agencies do not report through the deputy minister and your structure?
Mr. Schnob: I can go through the list. We have the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, the Courts Administration Service, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada. It is a Justice portfolio, but we are very independent of each other for a variety of reasons.
The Chair: Each one of those has its own chief executive officer and its own group of people that look after finances?
Mr. Schnob: Yes, that would be my understanding. They are quite independent of each other.
Senator Stewart Olsen: These would be arm's-length bureaus that would avoid political interference and would manage their own affairs?
Mr. Schnob: That is correct.
The Chair: I am not sure what you meant by "political interference."
Senator Stewart Olsen: Yes, you do.
Senator Ringuette: They would be subject to political interference?
Senator Stewart Olsen: No, that is not what I said. I asked a question about arm's length, and I am sure you understand my question, senator.
The Chair: Let us get back on track here.
Mr. Piragoff: Given the nature of our responsibilities at the Department of Justice and their independent functions, they are totally independent from the Department of Justice. The ministers are responsible for them to Parliament in terms of their finances, but each of them is a creature of statute, and they are controlled as a result of those statutes, and they have a statutory mandate.
The Chair: If the Auditor General came into the Department of Justice to review and provide oversight for parliamentarians, the Auditor General may not necessarily look at each of these separate agencies in doing that review?
Mr. Piragoff: No, the Auditor General can.
The Chair: Yes, can, but if the Auditor General is doing a review of Justice, the Auditor General may not necessarily look at these various agencies which are independent operating agencies.
Mr. Piragoff: That is correct.
The Chair: That is what I wanted to clarify. Thank you. It is an oversight issue that we are looking to.
Senator Runciman: In the introduction in the Main Estimates there is a comment that the department produces plans and priorities that are tabled in the house on or before March 31. Has that happened?
Mr. Oliver: The report on plans and priorities will be tabled this week, as we understand it, senator. It hasn't happened yet. I believe it is scheduled to be tabled this morning.
Senator Runciman: Where does that show up? Is that on the Justice website ultimately, or is it found at Treasury Board?
Mr. Oliver: It is all posted on Treasury Board. All the reports and plans and priorities of all departments are posted on the Treasury Board website.
Senator Runciman: Judges' compensation has a 5 per cent increase, and it talks about a number of judges, compensation, pension. If you could break that down a little bit, what are we talking about in terms of the numbers of new judges that are being planned for, and what is the compensation increase that judges are being awarded?
Mr. Piragoff: The Department of Justice has no role in the appointments.
Senator Runciman: I know that.
Mr. Piragoff: It is also set in terms of their salaries. There is a commission that makes recommendations to the minister.
Senator Runciman: What are the numbers?
Mr. Piragoff: I am not aware, but we can provide those.
Senator Runciman: There is no change in funding for the drug treatment courts, and I am curious how that program is working and how you see it being utilized going forward, especially in relation to Bill C-10.
Mr. Piragoff: There are six drug treatment courts that are pilot projects funded by the federal government. There are also some other drug treatment courts funded by the provinces. For example, there is one in Calgary funded by the province or the city.
The funding for the six pilot projects at the federal level has been extended for another year in order to provide more time to evaluate the pilot projects. We have also had discussions with the provinces and the territories. Some provinces would like an expansion, and we have indicated to them that, pending the results of the evaluation, over the next year we will be discussing to what extent we will reallocate or extend the program in future.
Senator Runciman: Based on the effect of Bill C-10.
Mr. Piragoff: Based on the evaluation, yes.
Senator Runciman: Does the federal government have a problem with respect to uncollected fines? We saw a study at the provincial level. I think it was over $1 billion in uncollected fines. Is there a comparable situation at the federal level?
Mr. Piragoff: I am not aware of it. We can find out. To a large extent, the collection of fines is really done by the provinces, which are responsible for the administration of justice. Quite often, even for federal offences, parking tickets at the airport, that is collected by the provinces by way of an agreement.
Senator Runciman: There is a reference to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the tribunal, and the tribunal can only hear cases that are referred to it by the commission. I understand there can then be an appeal to the Federal Court. Has any consideration been given to streamlining that process so there is just one administrative review with a possible appeal to the courts? Has that been looked at by the department?
Mr. Piragoff: I am not aware. We can get back to you. A colleague of mine is responsible for public law and those issues. I do not know to what extent we have been in discussions with that agency to talk about reform.
Senator Runciman: It struck me as something that should be considered if it is not being considered.
On page 231, the ombudsman shows in 2011-12 an expenditure of $28,000. That office has been in operation for a few years. I am curious as to why is it shown this way. It is a significant difference. Is that previous year reflected someplace else? Are you familiar with that? It is page 231.
Mr. Schnob: Page 231, there is a decrease of $28,000. I do not have the details of why they have a decrease of $28,000. I can get back to you.
The Chair: That is the full amount for 2011-12. Not a decrease; the difference is in the right-hand column.
Mr. Schnob: All I can say is that it is likely. I can get back to you for sure, but likely it was sunsetting and was renewed through the supplementary estimates last year, did not appear in the Main Estimates and is now appearing in part of the Main Estimates this fiscal year. I can verify that, but I am sure that is the answer.
The Chair: If you can confirm that it would be helpful.
Senator Runciman: Regarding legal aid and block transfers, are any of the legal aid dollars targeted? I thought there was a separate envelope for legal aid for security and terrorism cases and security certificate cases. Is there money that is targeted on the legal aid side of things?
Mr. Piragoff: Yes, it is called Public Security and Anti-terrorism Legal Aid Fund and that is a separate fund from criminal legal aid.
Senator Runciman: Regarding the $2.8 million for what they call special advocates, is there a distinction in security certificate cases versus the $2 million for defence lawyers for security anti-terrorism cases?
Mr. Piragoff: There are various funds. One is the special advocates, which are lawyers appointed by the minister to represent the interests of the individual in closed immigration proceedings.
Senator Runciman: The individual defendant?
Mr. Piragoff: Yes. In addition, those individuals can also apply for legal aid for the public proceedings. Sometimes they have their own lawyer to represent them in the public hearings. The in-camera hearings deal with issues concerning national security information, which cannot be disclosed to the individual. Therefore, the special advocates are appointed to represent the interests of the individual in closed proceedings, proceedings to which the individual and his or her lawyer are not entitled to participate.
Senator Runciman: They can potentially draw from both envelopes?
Mr. Piragoff: That is correct.
Senator Runciman: This is another issue dealing with legal aid and non-citizen criminals who are convicted of crimes in Canada and are fighting deportation. They qualify for legal aid, I understand.
Mr. Piragoff: Yes, they do.
Senator Runciman: This may not be federal again, but is there any process for recovery of any of those monies at some stage of the game?
Mr. Piragoff: The funding for immigration and refugee legal aid is part of the Canada Social Transfer, but for some provinces — because of the high demand — the federal government provided additional funding of $11.5 million a few years ago. That is proposed to be renewed again this year, subject to parliamentary approval.
Senator Ringuette: I have a series of questions. I hope that shortly you will be able to answer all of them through the clerk of the committee.
How many employees got notice letters of layoffs, by province, by classification? How many EX, how many DM, how many in your department — staffers, not employees — are not under the Public Service Employment Act, and what are their classifications? Last but not least, what is your program management cost?
I expect maybe you have answers already for some of those questions.
Mr. Oliver: We gave out approximately 162 letters of affected status, which basically means to the employee that we are examining the particular area within which they are currently working as a possible area for cuts. For the specific breakdown in terms of executives, et cetera, I will have to go back to the department and confirm the numbers.
Senator Ringuette: Yes, and by provinces and classification, and so forth.
Mr. Oliver: All affected letters of status were only in the national capital area, as far as I know. There were no other affected letters given out in the National Capital Region.
Senator Ringuette: You will confirm that to the clerk?
Mr. Oliver: Absolutely, I will.
Senator Ringuette: When I look at the Main Estimates, which is the issue of our meeting today, you have, insofar as Main Estimates for spending this year, about $694 million. When I look at your total spending of last year, it was $801 million. I am sorry. We get mixed up in the zeros, but they are very important zeros.
Actually, what I am looking at is that your spending, as of the end of March, was a little over $800 million. You are saying to us today that you expect to be spending $694 million this year. That is roughly $100 million.
How are you going to manage that?
Mr. Schnob: First, what we are telling you is we are expecting to spend $884 million, because the $694 million is the authority voted from Parliament. We add to that, in terms of our expenditures, $290 million of net vote authority; the total amount of spending is discounted by the net vote authority. That is how it is presented in the Main Estimates. The $694 million is what we receive as an appropriation, and then add to that the $290 million that we expect to re-spend from services that we deliver to the government department and agencies.
Senator Ringuette: Basically you are saying that your total operating budget will be increasing by $88 million? We have to compare apples to apples.
Mr. Schnob: It becomes difficult with these documents, because —
Senator Ringuette: If it is difficult for you, imagine how it is for us, and you manage the department.
Mr. Schnob: I understand that. The Main Estimates are the expenditures that are planned as of, basically, the February period when the estimates are prepared. It is based on past years' expenditures, et cetera.
Senator Ringuette: You said your $888 million is your planned spending. Your planned spending for 2012-13 is $888 million.
Mr. Schnob: Yes, approximately.
Senator Ringuette: Your total spending for last year was $800 million.
Mr. Schnob: I can get back to you, but I think the number you are looking at might also exclude revenues for last year, which would be about the $250 million mark. As Mr. Piragoff mentioned in the opening remarks, we actually spent over a billion dollars last year, when you include our revenues. This actually shows a decrease in planned expenditures from last year to this year, largely due to three factors. Those are the sunsetting initiatives that Mr. Piragoff talked about in his opening remarks, all of which have been included and proposed in Budget 2012. We will see whether we will get that through supplementary estimates.
The other factor is the transfer of funds to Shared Services Canada for approximately $19.5 million. They will deliver some IM/IT services to us and other government departments as our shared services agency.
We are actually showing a reduction in planned expenditures at this time compared to the last year.
Senator Ringuette: There is certainly quite an issue here that you have to raise with Treasury Board, because all other departments, if they get revenues that you indicated of $250 million — which is quite a lot — they should have been indicated in the Supplementary Estimates (C) of the last fiscal year, and there is nothing there. I have it right here. There is nothing in here that shows that you have some revenue to compensate for the additional amount of money that you have spent. Therefore, the financial reality that we have in front of us in regard to your operating expenses does not reflect what is really happening within your department.
Mr. Schnob: Understood. Our revenue authority would have been in our Main Estimates last year, as they are in this year. However, we put our planned operating and transfer payment expenditures, offset by the revenues, which gives a total authority.
Senator Ringuette: I have been on this committee for quite a while, and you are the only department that all of a sudden reveals to us that $250 million in revenue is not accounted for in any kind of estimates book that we have received.
Mr. Schnob: It would have been in the Main Estimates last year, as it is in the Main Estimates this year. It is under the column "Less: Revenues and Other Reductions."
Senator Ringuette: Where is that?
Mr. Schnob: I am looking at page 231 — is that the right one? Yes.
Senator Ringuette: Which is where?
Mr. Schnob: Page 231, Justice — $270 million and then $20 million, which is also part of revenues from clients. Therefore our planned expenditures, as per the estimates, are under Operating, Capital, and Transfer Payments. The form is that they subtract $290 million, which gives us the authorities that they are voting in terms of our vote 1 and vote 5 authority appropriations for this year.
Senator Ringuette: I see that.
Mr. Schnob: I understand. It has not been easy for me, and I work in this business.
Senator Ringuette: We should not be talking about the budget, but your opening statement talked about the budget, so I will take the liberty of moving on to budget issues.
The Chair: Is that okay with you? It depends on the question.
Mr. Piragoff: It depends on the question.
The Chair: You are here to deal —
Senator Ringuette: It is in regard to the statement that he made.
In the budget book here — not the ways and means — on page 273, "Planned Savings — Justice Portfolio," the Courts Administration Service is $1 million over the years. The Department of Justice — and you indicated that, in your statement — is this year $12.3 million in savings. Next year is $60.2 million. That is quite a jump. What will be happening here? When, on this page, it states the Department of Justice, does it include all the other agencies that do not report to you but report to the minister?
Mr. Piragoff: I believe the budget document talks about the portfolio, senator, and the justice portfolio, which includes the Department of Justice Canada and all those agencies that Mr. Schnob mentioned. The budget proposes savings of $76.9 million by 2014-15. Of that, $76.9 million by 2014-15, the Department of Justice Canada will achieve permanent savings of $67.5 million.
Senator Ringuette: Directly to your operation, not the agency — you are saying there will be savings of how much?
Mr. Piragoff: $67.5 million by fiscal year 2014-15.
The Chair: We are getting close to the end of your time. Do you want to go to round two?
Senator Ringuette: Sure.
Senator Eaton: I have a very quick clarification. Getting back to Senator Callbeck, legal aid, as I understand it, is mostly a provincial matter. When you transfer funds through the Canada Social Transfer, it is up to each province to administer whatever monies and however they want to give it. Even if you say "X should go to legal aid," it does not necessarily have to go to legal aid.
Mr. Piragoff: That is correct. It is a block transfer for civil legal aid. It is up to the province to decide what social services it will allocate the block transfer money to.
Criminal legal aid is a different issue; there we actually provide money to the provinces for the specific purpose of criminal legal aid, and there is a negotiated formula that we negotiate with the provinces as to how to allocate the money from province to province. It is a complex formula based on population, need, et cetera.
Senator Eaton: However, civil legal aid goes in the fund, it is transferred, and each province does as it sees fit; is that right?
Mr. Piragoff: That is correct.
The Chair: Thank you for that clarification between civil and criminal legal aid.
Senator Peterson: Thank you for your presentation.
What will be the expenditure reductions for 2012-13?
Mr. Schnob: $12.3 million, I believe, give or take.
Senator Peterson: How do you achieve that? What is the breakdown for the $12.3 million?
Mr. Piragoff: We can give you the breakdown, but a good portion of it is proposed discretionary spending reductions in things like travel, hospitality and conferences. We are also seeking to streamline our legal services. There are a number of mergers of various legal service units amongst a number of agencies; for example, within the agriculture portfolio, there is Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. In addition, there are some agencies that report to the same minister. We are merging all those various individual departmental legal services under one legal service unit, so that provides for savings.
We have also proposed consolidation of common services like HR, communications and finance. This is being done, again, to centralize to achieve a savings through avoiding duplication and redundancies.
Those are some of the ways the department is achieving its savings in the first few years.
Mr. Schnob: All of the expenditures for the first year are basically by salary and operating expenditures through efficiencies.
Senator Peterson: Through efficiencies. Okay.
When I look at the decrease for the shared services, that is not really a decrease. Somebody has to pay it. You are just moving around. You do not count that and say, "We have done our bit; we transferred some money."
Mr. Schnob: That was money transferred to Shared Services Canada, a new department that administers those services on our behalf and on behalf of 40-some departments.
Mr. Piragoff: We are doing the same thing within the department. We have various different financial or human resource centres in the regions; they will all now be consolidated in Ottawa. That is a centralization to try to achieve synergies and increase savings by avoiding duplication.
Senator Peterson: On these reductions, and moving forward, you are saying that the larger percentage of them is efficiencies and cutbacks, not cancellation of services?
Mr. Schnob: That is correct for the first year.
Senator Peterson: What about the next year?
Mr. Piragoff: The government has not announced all its decisions yet.
Senator Ringuette: This is a follow-up. Earlier, you indicated to me that 162 letters had been sent, and only in the National Capital Region. If you take that and what Mr. Piragoff just said to Senator Peterson, that HR in the regions were going to be closed and the central operations would be conducted in Ottawa, something does not jibe here.
Mr. Oliver: Currently, we are looking at how we can possibly save money by consolidating services. It is currently under study in terms of looking at how various services in the department internally are provided across the country.
At this particular time, there are no cuts to the region and no notices of affected status. We are simply studying how we can look at consolidation as a principle in terms of eliminating any overlap and duplication, and the areas we are looking at are largely administrative.
Senator Ringuette: When Treasury Board was here, they clearly told us that 19,000 letters were sent out to public servants indicating that their jobs were potentially being eliminated.
What you are saying is that Department of Justice employees in these particular regions whose jobs are potentially being eliminated have not received those letters?
Mr. Oliver: No, I am not. I cannot speak to Treasury Board's numbers, but we delivered approximately 162 letters of affected status to employees of the Department of Justice, and all those employees were in the National Capital Region.
The Chair: I think you are getting beyond your supplementary clarification point to use up other senators' time here. We will go to Senator Buth.
Senator Buth: Thank you for being here this morning.
I am interested in the Victims of Crime Initiative. Can you describe that program? Then I have some questions about the funding.
Mr. Piragoff: The Victims of Crime Initiative is a strategy that over the years has had incremental growth. A good part of the strategy involves the Victims Fund, which is administered by the Department of Justice. We have a number of partners in the strategy, including Public Safety Canada and the RCMP.
I can give you actual numbers, if you would like. I am just trying to find the tab number.
In 2007, for example, Parliament allocated $52 million for four years, which is about $13 million per year for the Federal Victims Strategy. In 2011, Parliament renewed the strategy and again committed $13 million per year.
This year, on April 23, the minister announced that Budget 2012 proposes an additional $1.4 million annually to the Victims Fund, which is within the strategy, and that is allocated specifically for child advocacy centres. That will increase the fund to $11.6 million annually if approved by Parliament. Also within the strategy, the proposed funding for the department, if approved by Parliament, would be $7.9 million.
Senator Buth: Could you repeat that again, please? You are looking at $11.6 million?
Mr. Piragoff: Yes, but I said that some of the money goes to other agencies like Public Safety, et cetera, and some goes to the Public Prosecution Service. The department itself would receive $7.98 million.
Senator Buth: How is that money allocated? Can you tell me the process?
Mr. Piragoff: The money in the fund is allocated to the provinces directly for some of their services because the provinces are the primary deliverers of services to victims, given their responsibility for the administration of justice. Some of the money also goes to NGOs that apply for funding for various projects. That is the major source of the department's expenditures for victims because we are not in the service delivery business.
Some money is provided to the territories, and because of our special relationship with the territories, we are a little bit more involved in the delivery of those services through the Public Prosecution Service.
Senator Buth: Can you give me examples of some of the NGOs that might be delivering some of these services?
Mr. Piragoff: Specifically, I do not have that with me, but we can provide you with some examples.
Senator Buth: What is the process you go through in allocating the funds? I understand some go to the provinces directly. Would you be reviewing those provincial requests in terms of the specific programs?
Mr. Piragoff: The department reviews the request, and the final decision is made by the minister.
Senator Buth: I am also interested in two other programs, the Youth Justice Fund being one. Can you describe that program? What is it for? What is the strategy? How does it work?
Mr. Piragoff: The Youth Justice Fund has a number of components, two in particular. One is a general fund that provides funding for various groups for various youth justice programs with respect to rehabilitation and prevention.
Another part of the fund is dedicated specifically to guns, gangs and drugs. It is specifically targeted to programs concerning drugs, youth and guns. There is another fund that is dedicated and provides supplementary funding to the provinces for high-risk, violent youth.
Senator Buth: Is the total of that fund $730,000?
Mr. Piragoff: I can confirm the number for you, senator. We will confirm the exact amount in writing.
Senator Buth: The last area I am interested in is the Aboriginal Justice Strategy. What is the strategy, and how is it delivered?
Mr. Piragoff: The government has proposed a renewal of the strategy to Parliament of $12.5 million. That money sunsetted on March 31. The government is proposing its renewal subject to parliamentary appropriation.
The strategy provides funding to the provinces in order to undertake various programs, for both urban and rural Aboriginal communities. It very much supports diversion and rehabilitation programs. Some of the money also goes directly to NGOs.
Senator Buth: Those are three programs with respect to victims, youth and Aboriginal peoples. How do you measure the impact of these programs?
Mr. Piragoff: That is always a difficult situation for the department because we do not deliver the services. To some extent, we provide the money to the provinces, and each of the provinces has a better success rate than others.
We do have evaluations of these funds because they are subject to renewal. Most of them are not permanent funding; they must be renewed for whatever period of time Parliament renews them for.
We undertake evaluations of the funds when we go back to cabinet to seek renewal, and Treasury Board in particular is very interested in seeing the impact of the evaluations. There is an evaluation process for each of these programs in order to determine to what extent the money spent has met its objectives and how well it was also spent in terms of the administration of the funds. Those are the components of the evaluation process.
Senator Buth: Are those reports available?
Mr. Piragoff: Treasury Board reports? Yes, they are.
Senator Buth: Thank you very much.
The Chair: In dealing with the questions for youth justice and the Victims of Crime Initiative, these are grants that flow through your department, as indicated on page 231.
I might have missed it, but did you explain why there is a seven times increase in victims of crime funding? It has gone from $350,000 to $2.5 million. Could you explain that?
Mr. Piragoff: I think it is due to the sunsetting.
The Chair: It sunsetted last year.
Mr. Schnob: Yes, it sunsetted last year; therefore, it would have been in the supplementary estimates.
The Chair: That is another one of those. Could you confirm that?
Mr. Piragoff: We can confirm.
The Chair: It makes it difficult for us. We look and see there is some savings or an increase, but it really is not, because of what else went on during the year.
Mr. Piragoff: There is also the issue of sunsetting, which looks like a deduction. Of course, during supplementaries it is an addition, but in addition to renewals, the government has also put new money into victims over the years. Over the years, actually there has been an increase in funding for victims.
Senator Gerstein: In the raison d'être paragraph on page 230, you talk about the fact that the department provides legal advice to the government and all federal government departments and agencies, and then you go on to say "and responds to the other legal needs of federal department and agencies."
First, do Justice lawyers in effect bill hours out to the people who are requesting their services?
Mr. Schnob: Yes, they do.
Senator Gerstein: Is that the $20 million that is shown as internal services revenue?
Mr. Schnob: We actually have authority for $290 million, and we expend that money, approximately $270 million, on what we call direct costs, that is, lawyers' salaries and salaries of legal assistants, et cetera; and $20 million of that $290 million is for support services, such as HR, finance, et cetera.
Senator Gerstein: You recoup? I am sorry. I am missing that. Another department, Public Works, asks you to draft a bill on something. Do you charge them?
Mr. Schnob: Yes, we do.
Senator Gerstein: Do you receive revenue?
Mr. Schnob: We receive revenue.
Senator Gerstein: Is that number in the $20 million?
Mr. Schnob: It is in both the 20 and the $270 million.
Senator Gerstein: It is in both of them?
Mr. Schnob: Yes. The $20 million would be the overhead portion of the amount that we bill.
Senator Gerstein: If that is the case, you cannot say it is exactly a profit centre, but how do you talk about your service level? This leads me then to ask how you prioritize who gets the first bid on a particular lawyer's services. What is the service level of the Department of Justice legal department?
Mr. Schnob: First, many of our lawyers are located on site at the department, within what we call departmental legal services units. Many departments have a dedicated group of lawyers.
Senator Gerstein: On your payroll in their department?
Mr. Schnob: Yes, they are on the Justice payroll and are physically located there. This is not the case in all situations. Some others are located either in regions or in our headquarters building. Whenever a client has a demand for legal services, their client representative or contact, usually at the departmental legal services unit and at the beginning of the year, would negotiate what type of services they need and who will provide that, and then there is an estimate of the cost to the client and the revenues that would flow into Justice.
Because we have this model of partially A-base funded, appropriated through Justice, we have the opportunity through the A-base that we receive directly from Parliament to make decisions on those files that we deem to be of import but that perhaps a client or clients may not think are as important. We have the capacity to decide on our own priorities; and through cost recovery, every client has now the capacity to decide on their own priorities. We call it a hybrid funding model, and everyone can be served at the level that is required based on the priorities that either come through the Department of Justice or through clients. That is largely the way the model works.
Senator Gerstein: If I take a look at the $270 million and the $20 million revenue and go back to the previous page where you talk about operating expenditures, does that include salaries of Justice lawyers, page 228, top line?
Mr. Schnob: Yes.
Senator Gerstein: The operating expenditures includes their salaries?
Mr. Schnob: Yes.
Senator Gerstein: That is being reduced by $21 million this year?
Mr. Schnob: Operating expenditures would be, yes, reduced by more than $21 million. The $21 million is only a subset of our entire revenues. We collect approximately $290 million of revenue. The $20 million really goes to support HR, administrative services to the lawyers. The $270 million of that $290 million is largely the direct costs, and that would be lawyers' salaries, legal assistants' salaries, basically the direct cost of providing the services. The $20 million is the portion that goes to overhead services so they can receive their paycheque, their IM/IT services, their communication services. Basically, we need to add approximately $290 million to that number on page 228 to reflect our entire expenditures for salaries and operating for the Department of Justice.
Senator Gerstein: This brings me back to where I started. How will the $21 million that shows it being reduced impact, if at all, the service levels this year of the Department of Justice?
Mr. Schnob: Now I understand. When looking at page 228, you are looking at the difference between our Main Estimates for 2011-12 and 2012-13?
Senator Gerstein: Correct.
Mr. Schnob: A large part of that difference, because these are all salary and operating expenditures, is the transfer of $19.5 million from our authorities to Shared Services Canada for IM/IT, now that I understand.
Senator Gerstein: I see.
Mr. Schnob: I thought you were talking about $20 million for internal services.
Senator Gerstein: Let me wrap up with the final question. What is happening to service this year in the Department of Justice versus last year, in terms of legal services provided to the government and other federal departments and agencies? Do they have the same great service they have always had?
Mr. Schnob: Yes, they will have the same great services they have always had. Surveys are done on a regular basis. Maybe Mr. Oliver can talk about the client satisfaction survey.
Mr. Oliver: We have client satisfaction surveys done on an annual and cyclical basis.
Senator Gerstein: Are they for public scrutiny?
Mr. Oliver: Yes, we can give them to you, the results.
Senator Gerstein: I am sure the committee would like to see how well we are servicing all the departments.
Mr. Oliver: We are quite pleased with the results or the level of service that is provided to government.
Senator Gerstein: If that can be provided to the clerk, it would be greatly appreciated.
The Chair: It may be a good time to clarify a follow-up that I had. Justice hires out legal services to other departments, and you have authority to get paid for that, and that brings that back to your department to help cover some of your expenses. There is this new entity for information technology being created, and we are required in these Main Estimates — at page 312 you can see it is a separate agency within Public Works — to vote a major amount of money to create that entity.
In your and many other departments, we are seeing a reduction in your operating expenses by an amount that is going to Shared Services, but we are voting that directly. You are not being required to pay, or are you, for those services on an annual basis, and they flow through your department?
Mr. Schnob: We are not. As in other departments, there was an amount we were spending on these services in previous years that was transferred, $19.8 million. Basically, our expenditures and our budgets were transferred to Shared Services Canada, who now have that as their budget and have taken over the expenditures that relate to that amount.
The Chair: You will not be charged for that?
Mr. Schnob: No.
The Chair: Unlike the services you provide to other departments that you do charge for?
Mr. Schnob: Yes, we do.
The Chair: I just wanted that to be clear, that there is a different way of handling this. Otherwise we would have been voting it twice.
I am down to the second round. We do not have a lot of time left, colleagues, but if you could tighten your questions up and if you can get undertakings, that would be fine as well.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I wanted to follow up on Senator Buth's questions around NGOs in terms of the consultation process. You used on your website fair, relevant, accessible justice systems, and so on. One of the groups is the NGOs.
How do you do that and on what kind of subjects do you do that and what is the mechanism for drawing them in and having them report? Do you pay them to do it?
Mr. Piragoff: No. That is why they are called NGOs.
Most consultation is oriented to a specific initiative, so it would be a bill in particular. If the government is proposing a bill in a certain area, we would consult with stakeholders in that area — the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police or certain other stakeholder groups that might have an interest in a proposed bill that has been tabled in Parliament or is at an early stage. Where we are developing policy, we might seek the advice of certain NGOs.
That is the legislative policy development. In terms of program delivery, the NGOs apply to the department for funding for the various programs. Then there is a process for reviewing the NGO in the course of the application, whether they are reliable, what their track history is in delivering on a project if we were to fund them.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Let me give an example. There is a private member's bill that is removing section 13 from the Human Rights Act. It includes three categories that are not in the Criminal Code. All of a sudden in Bill C-30, I see those three categories — disabled, sex, and discrimination on the basis of age — in there. What kind of NGO consultation did you do, or did you?
Mr. Piragoff: I was not responsible for that bill, but I can get back to you on that.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Can you use that as an example of how that process might work? Those are three major groups of NGOs, not-for-profit groups.
Mr. Piragoff: Yes, but there is no one NGO that represents those groups entirely. The three target areas — identifiable characteristics that you mentioned — are not represented by one particular NGO group.
Senator Nancy Ruth: One of the important things for NGOs to do is have a national body to speak, such as the CBA?
Mr. Piragoff: With the CBA on various other legislative initiatives, various other groups have been involved. For example, in the past when we have amended the laws with respect to sexual assault, we had significant consultations with various women's organizations.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Many women's organizations, not one.
Mr. Piragoff: Many. That is what I said.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I know. Before you just said —
Mr. Piragoff: There is not one. There are many different interests, many different points of view amongst women. When we were reforming the sexual assault laws, we had consultations with a number of different women's organizations. For example, on victims' issues, various victims organizations will make representations either to the minister directly or to the department.
Senator Nancy Ruth: You consult both with national groups and with many groups within the same area?
Mr. Piragoff: Some of the groups are national.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Yes, but in the women's movement, there is no national —
Mr. Piragoff: There is not one national group, but there are a number of women's groups that do have national representation across the country.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I will put my question another way. In the budget and the issues around charities, was the charity section of the CBA consulted?
Mr. Piragoff: The charities' part is the Department of Finance. You would have to ask them.
Senator Runciman: I have a follow-up to the question I asked you earlier about uncollected fines, and I said "provinces." If it is the province of Ontario, the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards estimates at least $1 billion of uncollected fines in Ontario alone. It strikes me. You indicated this is a provincial collection exercise, but you did not indicate how significant this could be. If it is $1 billion in Ontario, if you go across the country, it could be significant. I suspect a percentage of that has to be uncollected fines for the federal government. Do you have any kind of handle on that? It could be hundreds of millions of dollars. I am wondering why you are not playing some kind of activist role to get the provinces to start collecting. Are you involved in this issue at all? Do you have any kind of estimate of the monies that are sitting out there that perhaps we could help the taxpayers of the country with?
Mr. Piragoff: There are agreements with the provinces for them to collect fines that are awarded as a result of federal prosecution and drugs.
Senator Runciman: Do you not know how many fines are issued and what you are collecting? Do you not have any handle on that?
Mr. Piragoff: No. The money goes directly to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, not to the Department of Justice.
Senator Runciman: Should there not be some kind of auditing of this?
Mr. Piragoff: There probably is, but the Department of Finance would know how much they get from each province in fine collection.
Senator Runciman: We would have to go to Finance to try to get an answer.
The Chair: Would they know how much is outstanding?
Mr. Piragoff: I do not know.
The Chair: Could you find out? That is Senator Runciman's point, I think.
Mr. Piragoff: We will try to find out if there are statistics on what proportion of uncollected provincial fines are attributable to federal prosecutions.
Senator Runciman: Okay, thanks.
Mr. Piragoff: It may require us to ask each of the provinces. Hopefully we have that information here in Ottawa. If not, we may have to seek it.
Senator Runciman: It seems to me you should know what fines are being issued and what you are getting back as a result of those fines. It strikes me as straightforward, but maybe it is more complicated than that. In government, everything seems more complicated.
The Chair: An interesting point. We will be writing a report on this before the end of June. If you find it is so complicated that you cannot get an answer within the next several weeks, could you at least let us know you are working on it?
Mr. Piragoff: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Callbeck: A follow-up to one of the questions I asked you about legal aid. In the estimates, it refers to the decrease of $14.4 million, and you say that will be changed. In other words it will be added, so the amount of money in criminal legal aid will be the same this year as last year.
Can I take from this that the department has analyzed this whole area, and you have come to the conclusion that there will not be more demand for criminal legal aid because of the new mandatory minimum sentences?
Mr. Piragoff: Senator, I would not say that is the conclusion as a result of the renewal. One could look at the renewal as a reflection that even though the government is proposing reductions, it did not propose any reduction in legal aid. That may be a reflection that this is an area where it did not decide to take any reductions or savings because of the possibility of some increased demand in the future.
Senator Ringuette: An analysis has to be done.
Senator Callbeck: Can you forward to the committee the analysis on this whole area as to what you concluded?
Mr. Piragoff: We have been involved with the provinces. It is not simply a question of our conclusion. We actually work together with the provinces to examine what would be required for legal aid. The end result is that material is presented to the government. The government makes a decision. I can tell you that, of course, the provinces did ask for more increased funding. The government's proposal, as announced by the minister last week, was that there would be no decreases in funding and that funding would be renewed at pre-existing levels.
I cannot speak to the political decisions that were made, senator.
Senator Callbeck: You cannot give us any analysis, then, of Justice looking at this whole area? I cannot believe there will not be huge increases here, and yet the funding has not increased.
Mr. Piragoff: I would have to look to see to what extent some of the documents we have are able to be released because they come from the provinces. There is the whole question of the Privacy Act and Access to Information. I would have to see what information we received from the provinces that we would be able to provide to this committee. If there is information, we will provide it.
Senator Callbeck: You will provide the committee with information as to why this is the figure that we see in the estimates?
Mr. Piragoff: That is a question you would have to ask a minister of the Crown, senator. It is a political decision as to why the government decided to renew legal aid funding at existing levels as opposed to decreasing or increasing it.
Senator Callbeck: Can you provide us with the information as to what the provinces asked for?
Mr. Piragoff: I can probably provide that information to you.
Senator Callbeck: I appreciate that.
Senator Ringuette: I want to follow up on Senator Gerstein's question in regard to revenue and your acting as a centre of legal services for other departments.
How many of those legal services are contracted out by you? I ask because you do not have the human resources to supply what is needed to the different departments. Or is it the fact that, because you do not have the human resources to satisfy the demand, the different departments are required to contract out legal services?
Mr. Schnob: I can get back to you. I do not have the exact numbers of how many legal agents we hire, but I do know some legal agents are hired by the Department of Justice. They are sometimes paid by the Department of Justice. Sometimes, although organized through the Department of Justice, they are paid by the client. I can get back to you with the information we have available on that.
Senator Ringuette: It is part of the question that I asked earlier with regard to staffers, which includes contracting out necessary services.
In regard to a particular legal issue, and that is the Canada-U.S. softwood agreement, all kinds of litigation is still going on. How are you implicated into the legal arguments, and what is the cost for that?
Mr. Piragoff: We could provide the costs for our involvement in representing the government.
In terms of the legal arguments, it is hard for me to comment on continued litigation, but we can provide how much we have billed for that file.
Senator Ringuette: I would certainly like to have that.
I have a short but very important question. Mr. Piragoff, you indicated that in regard to planned savings, specific to the Department of Justice, there will be $67.5 million. I would like to have the specifics.
Mr. Piragoff: By the end of three years, our target is $67.5 million. That is correct.
Senator Ringuette: However, this year you are looking at $12 million. Next year you are looking at $60 million. Those numbers do not come out of thin air.
Mr. Piragoff: That is right, and how the government has come to those numbers has not yet been made public. As I said, there are still some decisions that have not been announced by the government.
Last week, the minister, for example, made some announcements regarding Aboriginal justice and legal aid. We expect that there will be more announcements in the future.
Senator Ringuette: These are decreases in funding. These are not increases in funding. These are decreases.
The Chair: To clarify this, you said the first year of the savings are all in efficiencies and salaries.
Mr. Schnob: They are efficiency-based savings such as salaries and operating expenditures. There are no program announcements for the first year.
The Chair: I wanted to clarify that for the record.
Senator Peterson: Let us go back to that decrease. You are transferring it to Shared Services Canada; is that $19.78 million net of any services that you would request back from them again?
Mr. Schnob: Actually, Shared Services Canada was formed and 40-some-odd departments took money from other departments and transferred it to Shared Services Canada, so that has become their source of funding.
Our budgets were reduced by that amount and were transferred to the new department, but our expenditures were also reduced by approximately the same amount. Basically, services that we were paying for ourselves — for example, we were buying our own BlackBerrys — will now be purchased through Shared Services Canada. Therefore, if we need a BlackBerry, I do not pay it out of our budget anymore. Shared Services Canada provides us with the BlackBerrys we need through their budget.
They have taken the budgets and the expenditures for a variety of services.
Senator Peterson: That is a lot of money. When they were in here before, they said no one will really leave your department. They will sit at the same desk and you have to pay them. BlackBerrys cannot cost that much.
Mr. Schnob: There are also people. There are a variety of services being delivered, such as IM/IT services, email services, and more. We have some people, as well. There are some people who are delivering these IM/IT services. I do not have the details of what they are, but those are now paid for through the Shared Services Canada appropriation. They are physically sitting in our offices, providing us with services. We simply do not pay their salaries, et cetera.
Senator Peterson: Could we quantify what makes up this $19.78 million and have it sent to the clerk?
Mr. Schnob: It is basically data centres, email, and network services. We can do that. It would be the same for every department, so we can come up with that list.
The Chair: It is just getting rid of some information technology overhead; they are not paying for it. The government is paying for it in a new department.
There is no charge-back.
Mr. Schnob: No, there is no charge-back. They have basically taken over the supervision of the email, data centres and network services unit on a macro level. The services are largely the same and are provided by Shared Services Canada. Over time, because now they have a shared services model, they are forecasting that they will be able to deliver these services from a central location in a consolidated fashion with less cost in the future. That would be a question for them, though.
The Chair: It is a new initiative. It is taking us a while to understand it, but I think we are beginning to. My understanding from talking to Public Works and Government Services Canada was that it would take about eight years to implement this; they are planning on an eight-year rollout period.
On behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, we thank you for taking the time to be with us and for the work that you will put in to gather the information you have undertaken to provide to us.
Mr. Piragoff, Mr. Oliver and Mr. Schnob, thank you very much. It was a very good session.
We will suspend for two minutes to allow our witnesses to get away and then we will reconvene to go in camera. However, we will handle that motion when we return.
I do not anticipate that this will be long. The first motion I should have is that we go in camera for consideration of the potential recommendations for our cross-border study. Do I have a motion? Thank you, Senator Buth. All those in favour? Contrary minded? Motion carried.
(The committee continued in camera.)