Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Legal aid, as I understand it, is provided by this government, and the department, to persons who otherwise would not be legally represented in court. I do not know what the exact guidelines are. Every time someone goes in front of the justice of the peace or a judge for a minor offence, they are not automatically entitled to legal aid. I wonder if, in fact, my interpretation of this is correct? Is a person required to apply and show that they are unable to secure counsel within their means to defend themselves against a serious charges? Is this correct? Is this a service where there are lawyers sitting in court, telling people they represent them, and subsequently billing the government. Is it something as simple as this or is it more complicated?

The Member is correct on the financial side of the criteria. For instance, if you come from a high income society and it is established that you are unable to secure legal counsel, legal aid could be extended to you. If you are in danger of going to jail or of losing your job, this also makes you eligible for legal aid along with the financial criteria which the Member has outlined. There may be a requirement to pay it back, especially if you are a good consistent wage earner.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is understandable that a person can earn a high income, but still require legal aid. It was interesting that the Minister said, "where there is a danger of going to prison." This is fairly serious. However, is legal aid provided for civil matters, such as a divorce? Would there be instances where a couple cannot agree to live together and there is a legal battle over children and other things, would legal aid be provided to either party to defend themselves in court over civil matters more than criminal?

Those situations are covered by legal aid's eligibility requirements. They are general enough to accommodate those. They are laid out in legislation and regulations.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would divorces and child custody situations be in that category?

Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In situations such as this there is a pay back requirement. Does this pay back requirement stay on the books for a long period of time? When the people who were provided legal aid find themselves in a better financial situation, after the legal proceedings are concluded, is there a statute of limitations or a period of time in which the government writes this off, or do they keep this going for a longer period of time?

Mr. Chairman, because it is public money, there is a requirement to be diligent about what is provided in the form of assistance in areas where we feel there is some possibility of repayment. They try to encourage some agreement whereby small payments can be made. Where it is possible and where the person makes an income, it stays on the books for some time, largely because it is public money.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Because legal aid is public money there are many people who need legal help to assist them through bad times. As the Minister pointed out, if the money is recoverable the department should hopefully, over a period of time, recover a large percentage of what is paid out. Is there a ceiling to the amount which an individual or individuals can become eligible for under legal aid? I realize legal services are expensive, but is there a ceiling which prevents the using up of all this money fairly quickly on one or two issues?

Mr. Chairman, the notion that the legal services board has some collecting agency is not fact. I do not want to create that sense. By and large, if you are considered eligible it is because you do not have the capacity at that time, temporarily or permanently, to have legal services made available to you through your own means. In large part, the numbers of clients who are asked or expected to make some repayments are very small. In any case, I think it has been said by the Auditor General, that it is no use to make measurable resources available to collect this money. The eligibility itself largely makes the collecting part of it not necessary or even worthwhile. If there is a ceiling placed on a particular case, then I understand the executive director has some flexibility in making sure it is not cut off in the middle of a case because a ceiling has been hit. There is some discretion there by the legal services board.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I fully support this program, but perhaps $4 million is not enough at times to meet all the needs in the territories that people find themselves in. What I wanted to conclude with, Mr. Chairman, is that as much as I support the program adamantly, I am very concerned that although there is a payback requirement, I do not know whether the department is diligent enough in pursuing these clients. The department should put the money back into this fund where it would help people who really need it.

I have had two examples on my files. One was a young man who was assisted in the amount of $65. For months after, that person was hounded by the department to pay this money back. I saw the letters and eventually it was paid back. It probably took more than $65 to chase it. On the other hand, I have letters from concerned constituents who claimed that up to $30,000 in legal fees were paid on behalf of individuals and very little effort was made to collect that money. Yet, the person finds themselves in better financial position than they were at the time. I thought there was a bit of a discrepancy there between one situation and the other. I will not disclose any more than that. I just wanted to point out that, in my opinion, the department is not diligent enough about recovering monies and making sure that the people who need the aid are receiving it, rather than the people who are not. I would like to leave it at that because I think the Minister has answered the questions which I was concerned with. Again, as I said, I support the principle. I wish that there would be more money to help the people who really need it and less to help those who, in some cases, do not really need it.