Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 19 - Evidence - May 15, 2012 - Morning meeting
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 15, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:30 a.m. to examine the subject matter of all of Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures introduced in the House of Commons on April 26, 2012.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Before beginning the formal part of our meeting, I would like honourable senators to know that we are being visited today by a delegation of parliamentarians from Kenya. They are part of the public investments committee and they are very interested in the oversight that our committee performs with respect to budget and budget implementation. Their area of mandate in their own Parliament is reports and accounts — and it is public accounts — the reports of the Auditor General, very similar to our committee's responsibility, the context of autonomy and efficiency of public investments, whether the affairs of public investments are being managed in accordance with sound financial business principles and commercial improvement practices. It is very similar to the mandate that we have, and I would like to introduce our guests. They are in the visitors' gallery. There is the Honourable Mithika Linturi, Member of Parliament. He is the chair of the group. There is the Honourable David Eseli, Member of Parliament, and the Honourable Silas Ruteere, also a Member of Parliament. They are accompanied by the High Commissioner of the Republic of Kenya, Mr. Simon Nabukwesi. Thank you very much for being here. We look forward to having an opportunity to chat with you following the meeting, perhaps.
[Translation]
This morning we are continuing our study on the subject matter of Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.
[English]
Honourable senators, this is our third meeting on the subject matter of Bill C-38. The bill is 424 pages in length and covers many different areas of the budget as well as certain other measures, as is indicated by the name of the bill. It is budget implementation plus certain other matters. This morning we will continue asking government officials to take us through a clause-by-clause of portions of the bill. We have 16 witnesses this morning that will be appearing in the next two hours. After there has been an explanation of the sections of the bill, we will have our usual question and answer time for clarification. If you would indicate whether you wish to participate at any time, let our clerk know and we will see that you have the opportunity to understand fully the portions of the bill being explained.
We are in Part 4 of the bill, and we are in Division 6. There are 56 divisions in Part 4, but the good news is we have done Parts 1 and 2 and we do not have to do Part 3 at this time. We will carry on with the 56 divisions of Part 4.
Part 6 division is Social Security Tribunal and Services Delivery, and that appears in our bill at page 196.
We have Ms. Sue Foster, Ms. Gillian Campbell and Mr. Raymond Nichols, all from HRSDC Service Canada. Ms. Foster, will you be giving us a few introductory remarks and leading us through?
Sue Foster, Director General, Policy, Quality and Appeals Directorate, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: Yes, thank you. As the chair mentioned, Division 6 introduces the social security tribunal and changes to the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act related to service delivery, which is really code word for electronic services.
I will speak first to the introduction of the social security tribunal, which is introduced by new Part 5 to the Human Resources and Skills Development Act. Division 6 also makes consequential amendments to the Canada Pension Plan, Old Age Security and the Employment Insurance Act, as well as other pieces of legislation that are related to tribunals.
There are currently four tribunals that hear appeals in the Canada Pension Plan Old Age Security and Employment Insurance program, and these four tribunals are being collapsed into one tribunal that will hear appeals on all three programs.
Clauses 223 to 224 in the legislation create the social security tribunal. They outline the structure of the tribunal, the membership of the tribunal, how the tribunal will be administered, function of the tribunal, the timelines associated with appeals and basically the whole parameters around the tribunal.
Clause 223 is just introducing the name of the tribunal in the introduction of Part 5, and then there are a number of sections in clause 224 which create all the different parameters for the social security tribunal.
Clauses 225 to 234 are the changes to the Canada Pension Plan associated with the tribunal. It is just changing references to the review tribunal and the pension appeals board under the Canada Pension Plan to replace it with the social security tribunal. Clauses 235 to 239 do the same thing for the Old Age Security Act and 240 to 250 do the same thing for the Employment Insurance Act. In clauses 251 to 270 there are a number of transitional provisions which outline how we will make the transition from the existing tribunals into the new social security tribunal.
The consequential amendments, as I mentioned, from clauses 271 to 280 amend a number of other different pieces of legislation that make reference to the various existing tribunal bodies, replacing them with mention of the social security tribunal.
That is Part 5, which is associated with the social security tribunal.
Part 6 is on page 204 of your legislation, if that is helpful.
The Chair: Yes, it is.
Ms. Foster: This one has sort of like a sandwich to it. The way that it is set up in the legislation, the social security tribunal starts first and then the electronic services are sort of interjected as Part 6. Then we continue on with amendments to other pieces of legislation associated with the social security tribunal. It is a little tough to follow it when you are reading through the legislation. Part 5 is the social security tribunal. Then we skip over the new Part 6 which creates the electronic services authorities, and then the other legislative amendments that I just spoke to related to the social security tribunal. Hopefully that is clear. Back to the new Part 6 of the Human Resources and Skills Development Act —
The Chair: These parts should not be confused with the parts of Bill C-38.
Ms. Foster: Correct. They are parts of the division.
The Chair: They are different parts, but called by the same name.
Ms. Foster: Correct.
The Chair: They are parts of the Human Resources and Skills Development Act?
Ms. Foster: Correct. Part 6 of the Human Resources and Skills Development Act is another new part that is being added to this legislation to introduce the authorities related to electronic services. This allows for the integration and interoperability of electronic services in relation to Canada Pension Plan, the Old Age Security program and Employment Insurance, as well as grants and contributions.
In essence, it is an enabling clause that will allow the department to introduce electronic services across these programs that talk to each other and have sort of the same operability.
For example, when we are going to identify an individual electronically, we will do it the same way for all of these programs. It is about making sure that we have a consistent approach and the necessary legislative authorities to do so. That, in a nutshell, is what Division 6 is all about.
I was not sure if you want me to go through each one of the clauses or if you want to move to questions in terms of any specific clauses.
The Chair: You have referred us to the clauses. There are no other initiatives here other than the overview that you have given us?
Ms. Foster: Correct.
The Chair: The tribunal that is being created is fundamentally the same as one of the other tribunals that is being collapsed into this?
Ms. Foster: All four of them are being replaced by one tribunal.
The Chair: Yes, but the structure of that tribunal, the two levels and the people who will be appointed, all of those are things we are already familiar with, but four of them are being collapsed into one?
Ms. Foster: Right, it is streamlined.
The Chair: Streamlined; there is a word of the year. Thank you for that.
Senator Callbeck: On the social security tribunal, we now have four tribunals which will be collapsed, and we will end up with one. What is the wait time right now with those four tribunals that exist?
Ms. Foster: I believe the wait time is different for each of the tribunals.
Senator Callbeck: What is it? Do you have the wait time for each of them?
Ms. Foster: I do not have the actual existing wait time for those tribunals, but I know that one of the regulatory authorities that is being given in the legislation is to create timelines associated with the government's responsibility in terms of making decisions and delivering on appeals at the various different levels, which is something that did not exist before across the three programs. Legislating the timelines associated with this is meant to improve the service to clients in terms of the period of time that they have to wait for their appeals to be heard.
Senator Callbeck: It is a good idea. In the four tribunals now, how many people do you have involved there?
Ms. Foster: Do you mean how many members?
Senator Callbeck: Yes.
Ms. Foster: There are currently just over 1,000 part-time members.
Senator Callbeck: With the one tribunal, how many will you have?
Ms. Foster: It will be up to 74 full-time members.
Senator Callbeck: It will be up to 74 full-time?
Ms. Foster: Right.
Senator Callbeck: You said you had 1,000 part-time members?
Ms. Foster: Right.
Senator Callbeck: That is quite a difference.
Ms. Foster: The difference is in the number of people that sit on the panels, not the number of panels.
We are moving from three-member panels to one-member panels. As a result of them moving from a part-time position to a full-time position, it is expected that they will gain expertise in their area and will hear appeals more quickly, and then tenures are also longer. They are five years with obviously a possibility of extension.
In the straight number comparison, it is important to note that it is moving from a three-member panel where three individuals heard an appeal to one member hearing an appeal.
Senator Callbeck: There will be one member, and then the person can appeal that, can they, if they do not like the decision?
Ms. Foster: Yes, they can.
Senator Callbeck: To whom do they appeal?
Ms. Foster: The way that the new appeal process will work, the first step is that the individual can request a reconsideration of the minister or the commission's decision — the minister for pension decisions and the EI Commission for EI decisions.
The very first step is an official reconsideration that the department has to do of the decision that was taken that the individual is unhappy with. We do an official reconsideration of the decision, and it is that decision that the individual would actually file an appeal from to the first level in the social security tribunal, which is the general division.
In the general division, there are two sections. There is the Employment Insurance section and the income security section. Obviously, the income security section is for the pension appeals. If the individual is unhappy with the decision at that level, they would go to the appeal division, which is the second level of formal appeal, and then on to the Federal Court if unhappy with the appeal division decision.
Senator Callbeck: You say you had 1,000 in the four tribunals that exist. There are 1,000 part-time people. How many hours a year would they be involved?
Ms. Foster: On average now, it is about two days a month that they are involved in hearing appeals.
Senator Callbeck: If you calculated that for 1,000 people, that is equivalent to how many full-time?
Ms. Foster: Our estimate is that each member of the general division on the Employment Insurance section side would be able to hear a maximum of 690 cases a year.
Senator Callbeck: I am concerned about the time frame, how long it will take for the general public to make a complaint and hear the result. You said you had 1,000 part-time people. What is the equivalent of that in full-time people?
Ms. Foster: The equivalent is 74. You have to factor into the equation the fact that they are three-member panels and we are moving to one-member panels.
Just on a rough calculation, if you have 1,000 part-time members and they are sitting on three-member panels, right off the bat you only have 300 panels, right?
Senator Callbeck: Yes.
Ms. Foster: Then they are only hearing cases about two full days a week, which when you translate that into a full- time single member panel hearing appeals all year round, 74 members is the maximum that you need.
However, we also have built in a sort of pressure valve, if you will, where part-time members can be appointed if needed to take some pressure off the system. If the 74 is not acceptable, for example, if we go through what we did recently with the economic downturn, where we had more EI clients, the appeals went up just as a result of having more clients, there is a pressure valve built in where we could appoint up to the equivalent of 11 full-time members through part-time members. That would allow us to add more members as needed in order to manage any overflow, if you will.
Senator Buth: Clearly, a lot of thought and work has gone into creating this tribunal and collapsing the four into it. I am curious about the timelines that you mentioned. Can they be set in regulation or are they set within the legislation itself?
Ms. Foster: They will actually be set in the regulations. There is authority in the legislation to establish the timelines for the various steps in the appeal process for all three of the programs.
Senator Buth: Just to confirm, this is the first time that there will be regulation in terms of timelines?
Ms. Foster: That is right.
Senator Buth: Did you mention what the timelines are currently like for appeals?
Ms. Foster: For example, on the EI side, we do not actually have any timelines in the regulations regarding when the appeal system has to make decisions, but we do have key service indicators, of course. For example, at the level of the board of referees, which is the first level of appeal for a client on an Employment Insurance case, we have 30 days from the day that we receive the appeal to prepare the appeal and schedule it with the board of referees. That is something we do as a service. It is not in the regulations, but we are entrenching that type of step in the regulations.
Senator Buth: They will be into the timelines?
Ms. Foster: Exactly.
Senator Buth: In terms of the electronic piece, can you walk through what you are looking at again?
Ms. Foster: Yes. This introduces a new Part 6 to the Human Resources and Skills Development Act, which did not exist before. It is designed to give the department the authority to have an integrated approach to electronic services. This legislative authority does not exist in the Human Resources and Skills Development Act. For Employment Insurance, for example, where we have made great headway in automated agenda, our applications are provided largely on the Internet, electronically. We have been using an electronic signature for some time. Therefore, there are obviously some regulatory authorities within the Employment Insurance Act that allow us to do that. However, in terms of the pension programs, there are limited authorities to date in terms of the provision of electronic services.
We are putting it in the Human Resources and Skills Development Act sort of as a chapeau legislative authority, which will remove the bits and pieces from the various pieces of legislation and bring them into the chapeau legislation, so that they are consistent across the board. As I mentioned before, the electronic identity confirmation will be the same across all the three programs. Electronic signature is another one. How we do it on one program will be the same for another program.
This will permit consistency and interoperability between all the electronic services, making them consistent across the board. Clients will know that they will have the same treatment or access, if you will, to electronic services no matter which door they come to for a program or a service.
Senator Buth: Have you done any measurements or taken a look at customer satisfaction in terms of the electronic services being provided through the EI program?
Ms. Foster: I do not have any data available to me right now. I know that, generally speaking, our EI clients are very happy with the fact that they can make an application for benefits online. They can also electronically file their biweekly report cards, which are required to receive their cheque.
On the pension side, we are still very much in a paper-focused world; it is very paper heavy. We still rely on a wet signature. As we remove forward with our service improvement strategy on the pension side, we want to move the pension delivery world into the electronic world, as well, to ensure that all the trains are moving on the same track as we are making this massive transformation on the pension world.
Senator Buth: How long do you think it will take for you to do that?
Ms. Foster: It has taken some time to get the Employment Insurance as far advanced as it is right now. We are moving from an almost fully paper-based pension world, so it will take some time. I do not know exactly how long.
Senator Ringuette: What are the savings to be found in collapsing these tribunals into one?
Ms. Foster: The savings associated with this proposal are related primarily to the move from three-member panels to one-member panels, which is largely —
Senator Ringuette: I meant the dollar number.
Ms. Foster: It is $25 million.
Senator Ringuette: Over how many years?
Ms. Foster: At maturity, per year.
Senator Ringuette: Per year?
Ms. Foster: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: In regard to timelines and wait times, I will give you an example, and I have said this many times at this committee: CPP appeals in New Brunswick are over 180 days, while in Ontario it is 90 days. There is a timeline for the appeals in regard to CPP, and it is 90 days. It is right there publicly, so when you say that there is no timeline and this will bring timelines, I am sorry but that is not the reality.
Going back to the situation in New Brunswick, how will this new collapsed tribunal make it so that New Brunswickers will not have to wait twice as long as Ontarians to have a review of their case?
Ms. Foster: The 120 days is an average time for appeals at this time, and the 90 days that you are quoting is actually not regulated. It is a service standard, like I mentioned, on the Employment Insurance side. We are regulating periods of time. Our proposal is to regulate through the regulatory authorities provided in the legislation.
Senator Ringuette: What will be the regulation, then?
Ms. Foster: The proposed regulation is for 100 days.
Senator Ringuette: When will we see that regulation put in place?
Ms. Foster: They have not actually been drafted yet, but they will be drafted in the summer.
Senator Ringuette: This is a very large geographic country, and the thousand and more part-time members of these three different boards were located across the country. Where will the 74 full-time members be located?
Ms. Foster: This is a Governor-in-Council decision that has not been taken as yet.
Senator Ringuette: You are saying to me it is a possibility that there might not even be one in New Brunswick; furthermore, with New Brunswick being a bilingual province, who can assure New Brunswickers that the members in these panels for New Brunswick will be bilingual in order to hear the people?
Furthermore, the entire basis of tribunals and having three people on a panel was to ensure a proper assessment from the taxpayers' or clients' viewpoint. Now we are moving from a three-person panel to hear a client in regard to his or her review requests to a one-person panel that is appointed probably by the suggestion of the minister by the Privy Council.
I am seriously questioning the entire fairness that was very much engrained in the process; at least the client had a feeling that three people hearing his or her situation would have a more objective view than a one-person panel.
I know I have just thrown to you a lot of questions, but let us go back then to the first one: the geographic situation. This committee and Parliament will not know where these new 74 panels will be located throughout the country. We do not know that. We also really do not know the timelines for the three different things. Then I guess my other question will be in regard to the fairness of the process, which is removing three people from hearing a case to one person hearing a case.
Then I go on also to your statement in regard to these people will become more expert in their section. What you are saying is that those 74 members will each have an expertise in three divisions. Then you are saying that some of the 74 people will be dealing solely with EI issues, some of them will be dealing only with CPP issue, and some of them will be dealing only with Old Age Security issues; is that the fact?
Ms. Foster: Correct, yes.
The Chair: You have one minute left, senator.
Ms. Foster: There are two sections in the general division: The Employment Insurance section, which obviously deals with Employment Insurance, and the income security, which would deal with the pension issues. Then at the next appeal division, the members would hear appeals on all three programs.
Senator Ringuette: You are saying that, in reality, there is no expertise.
I suppose you have a table of those 74 members showing how many will be hearing CPP, how many will be hearing EI and so forth. Could you bring that to our clerk, unless you have it here, because we are looking at the legislation to do this?
Ms. Foster: At the general level, where it is broken into two sections, there are 39 members who will hear appeals related to employment insurance, and the remainder will hear pension appeals.
Senator L. Smith: Ms. Foster, with respect to consolidating the tribunals and going back to Senator Callbeck's question and Senator Buth's question, could you give us just a summary of the reasons for this consolidation and the benefits that will occur from it? You mentioned going from 1,000 part-timers to 74 full-timers with the objective of developing more expertise. Could you give us a little background, maybe three or four points, to summarize the objective and the outcomes that you hope to achieve from this. Will you initiate a tracking system in terms of your service levels, and will that information be forthwith given to the public so you are able to reinforce why you did what you did and maybe get some positives out of this as opposed to potential negatives? Those negatives can occur with people saying, ``You will not have as much focus because you now have 74 when you had 1,000.'' We understand the reasons for doing this, but if you could give us a summary, that would be helpful.
Ms. Foster: The objective behind the proposal of the social security tribunal is to ensure that clients have one- window access into the appeal process. Right now, there are four different bodies with varying levels, and the idea is to consolidate those so clients can understand the system better and it is clearer to them.
As I indicated, the members will be full-time members, which is a significant change in terms of the amount of time that they would spend sitting on these panels. They will be appointed to these panels through a competitive process, which will be required to measure their expertise before they are even appointed to the panel.
As well, they will have access in making their decisions. Particularly on the pension side, they will have access to legal and medical advice, much as they do now through the other panel members that sit with them. They will still have access to this as members of the panel that they are hearing appeals on.
The majority of the savings associated with the amalgamation of these four tribunals is associated with the collapsing from three-member panels to one-member panels and the associated travel and per diem costs related to having these 1,000 or so part-time members. We are moving to 74, and they are full time.
We are also trying to transform the way pensions are heard and filed to a less paper-burdened world, eventually to an electronic model, which will allow individuals to file their appeals electronically. They will eventually have the option of being heard, if desired, via video conference. There are a number of improvements, both from a service delivery perspective as well as from the administrative delivery perspective in terms of streamlining and improving services to clients.
Senator L. Smith: To categorize it, efficiencies, more development of your officers in that someone working two hours a month, or whatever the measurement is now, may not be able to develop the level of expertise. Even if you have three members, those three members may not have the same competency as someone who has developed a broader or more in-depth expertise in this area. Is that correct?
Ms. Foster: Yes.
Senator L. Smith: You are trying to get at the service issue that I think Senator Callbeck and Senator Buth were trying to find out.
Ms. Foster: Yes.
Senator L. Smith: Will you have a tracking system for that?
Ms. Foster: Absolutely.
The Chair: Is this initiative in the budget?
Ms. Foster: Yes, it is.
The Chair: We were trying to find it.
Ms. Foster: It is page 270.
Gillian Campbell, Senior Director, Special Project Lead, Policy, Quality and Appeals Directorate, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: I think it is page 207. It is in an annex, senator.
Ms. Foster: It is page 270, Annex 1.
The Chair: I will not say anymore.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Good morning to all three of you, and thank you for being here. How many part-time members do you expect there will be?
Ms. Foster: The part-time members will not be there in the beginning; this is simply a provision that will allow for an appointment if that is necessary.
Senator Nolin: In a more fundamental connection, throughout the text a tribunal is mentioned, you spoke about it, the minister refers to it. Canadians expect a tribunal to be just, fair, and to render justice, as their rights are directly affected. How can you guarantee to Canadians that the members of this tribunal will have the necessary independence to be able to act while respecting the rights of Canadians?
Ms. Foster: The candidates for these positions are recruited through a competitive process. For the members of the employment insurance board, for instance, the minister must consult a committee established pursuant to the recommendations of the chair, the employer's representative, and that of the workers.
[English]
Senator Nolin: Let me be clearer. All those mandates are renewable.
Ms. Foster: Correct.
Senator Nolin: What guarantees a Canadian that the hearing will be fair if the member hearing him is in his fourth year? He or she may want to have a renewed mandate. What kind of guarantee does the Canadian who will be facing that tribunal have to be convinced that the member of that tribunal will respect his or her rights and not something else?
Ms. Foster: We currently have members who are renewable each three years, so I do not believe that there would be a change in terms of the fairness of the hearing that would be somehow linked to the period of the terms. They are in a similar situation now, where they are renewed.
Senator Nolin: Are all those decisions appealable?
Ms. Foster: Yes.
Senator Nolin: When you say yes, appealable in front of whom?
Ms. Foster: Which decision?
Senator Nolin: The final decision of the appeal division.
Ms. Foster: It is the Federal Court of Canada.
Senator Nolin: Is that an appeal or a review?
Ms. Campbell: It is the Federal Court of Appeal.
Senator Nolin: Is that an appeal of all the decisions or only a judicial review?
Ms. Campbell: It is a judicial review.
Senator Nolin: Can you explain to the members of the committee the difference between an appeal and a judicial review in front of the appeal division of the federal court? There is a distinction between having a right to appeal a decision and the right to question, to bring on a review of the process.
Ms. Campbell: I am not a lawyer, so I cannot speak officially to that. I can get you a correct — I will not try to provide that.
Senator Nolin: If you can, because there is an important distinction between the two. It is not appealable. It is reviewable.
Ms. Campbell: It is appealable.
Senator Nolin: Okay, that is fine. I accept your answer.
The Chair: You should be able to find the section for us quite quickly in Division 6 that refers to appeals to the Federal Court.
Ms. Campbell: Yes.
Senator Nolin: It is the amending section, I believe, 28(1)(g) of the Federal Courts Act.
Ms. Foster: The Federal Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear and determine applications for judicial review.
Senator Nolin: So it is a review.
The Chair: From where did you read that?
Ms. Foster: I read that out of my clause-by-clause package, which unfortunately does not have page numbers. It is clause 272(1).
Senator Nolin: It is on page 224 of the bill. Thank you. If you do not have the answer now, you could provide us something in writing from Justice Canada, and I would like to have access to that.
Ms. Foster: Yes, we can definitely do that.
Senator Nancy Ruth: My questions are in the same line. I wanted to again raise this issue of expertise of those hearing the appeals at the first level.
Can I assume there will be some transfer of people? Will they compete for these jobs and also be measured?
Ms. Foster: That is correct.
Senator Nancy Ruth: One can believe they will have expertise in the areas they will be hearing.
Ms. Foster: Yes.
Senator Nolin: If I may, I have a supplementary on the answer just given.
You asked about competition, fine, but you also asked about examination. I would like to understand how that works. The appeal exists exactly for that reason. Another judge cannot examine.
Senator Nancy Ruth: This is for the judges.
Senator Nolin: I know, but you are not examining a judge.
Ms. Foster: They are not judges, and I was talking in terms of a competitive process to measure their skill for the job.
Senator Nolin: Before giving them the position?
Ms. Foster: Correct.
Senator Nolin: Not during?
Ms. Foster: No. There is a competitive process. There will also be performance evaluations made of the members on an ongoing basis by the chair.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Clause 53(1) says the following:
The General Division must summarily dismiss an appeal if it is satisfied that it has no reasonable chance of success.
Can you tell us what the problems were and what percentage of cases that came forward for appeal were frivolous and vexatious? Why is there a need to put this in?
Ms. Campbell: One of the savings was anticipated in the fact that there are still claimants or appellants who wish to come forward, even though they are told they would be unable to proceed with the rulings.
A simple example is with a case of Employment Insurance where an individual requires 600 hours and they only have 599. Their case will not be successful. However, under the current system, they are still able to file an appeal and have a hearing, at which point their hearing ends with, ``You are not able to create that additional hour; therefore . . . .'' In that case, it would be summarily dismissed because they were unable to achieve a decision that would satisfy the provisions of the act.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Are most of the cases dismissed similar to the one you have just illustrated? What other types of cases would be dismissed?
Ms. Campbell: It would really be on those types of grounds, where there is 100 per cent inability to move forward. People seek the ability to have a hearing, even though in many cases the client is well aware they will not be successful in their appeal.
Ms. Foster: They also have the right to appeal a summary dismissal. A decision to summarily dismiss is appealable to the Federal Court.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Is permission required to appeal the leave from the general division to the appeal division?
Ms. Campbell: That is correct.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Who is it that gives that permission?
Ms. Campbell: The appeal division member.
Senator Nancy Ruth: One person will look at the facts and decide whether it is appealable. Okay.
Then it goes on to judicial review at the Federal Court. The last sentence says that the social security appeals tribunal will, in limited circumstances, have the power to reconsider its own final decisions. Can you tell us why that sentence is there and what you hope to achieve by it?
Ms. Campbell: In terms of wanting to reconsider its own decisions, in some cases now, it is not permissible for them to change their decision. This enables them to change their decision, presumably in favour of the client.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Could you provide an example of that? They have made a decision, and later new information comes in, new facts. Why would they be reconsidering their own decisions?
Ms. Campbell: Receiving new facts is probably the only opportunity for them to do that, and it is allowable at both levels, although the second level of appeal, which is new to the SST, is not de novo.
Senator Nancy Ruth: What does that mean, ``de novo''?
Ms. Campbell: Additional information —
Senator Nancy Ruth: — cannot be added at the appeal level?
Ms. Campbell: That is correct. Currently on the CPP and OAS side, with the Pension Appeals Board, which is the second level of appeal for pensions, it is de novo. Basically, it is a completely new hearing. It is not reviewing the facts, so this alters that.
Senator Ringuette: What is the proposed salary and benefits for these 74 proposed tribunal members?
Ms. Foster: At this point, the salary levels have not been determined, but there will be a distinguishing salary differential, obviously, between the chairs, the vice-chairs and the members.
Senator Ringuette: Earlier you said you will have a savings of $25 million. If the salaries of these 74 people have not been established, how can you anticipate a savings?
Ms. Foster: There is a three-to-one reduction in the number of members.
Senator Ringuette: Never mind that. You are saying you do not know what your costs will be. Is that right?
Ms. Foster: We used a proxy for the salary levels of the various members, but the actual final salary amount has not been determined.
Senator Ringuette: What is the range?
Ms. Foster: I do not know them off the top of my head; I am sorry. We can get back you on that, if you like.
Senator Ringuette: Yes, please. Could you provide us with the range?
Ms. Foster: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: With regard to your earlier example of an EI case where someone had 599 hours and the benefits require 600, the EI system moves from region to region, and from time to time depending on the unemployment rate in that region.
It could very well be that at the time a person completes work in a seasonal industry, for example, the requirement is 595 hours, but a week later — and we have seen many examples of this in the past five years — because of moving targets, the requirement is increased by four hours in order to qualify. It is not the responsibility of the EI client that the department has unilaterally changed the requirements to qualify. Your entire process must take that into consideration.
Ms. Foster: It in fact does, senator. What actually happens is every four weeks the unemployment eligibility rules are adjusted to reflect the local unemployment rates. That is what you are speaking to.
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
Ms. Foster: When an individual makes a claim for benefits and they just miss the entrance requirement in their area, our system will automatically check when the unemployment rate changes. If they meet the new criteria, we will send them a notice and ask them to re-file. The determining factor of which hours we use to establish a claim is based on the week that it is filed and which four-week phase it falls into. If an individual needed 595 hours and they had 590, and the next Statistics Canada cycle it dropped down to 500 or whatever the next range is —
Senator Ringuette: More likely it goes up.
Ms. Foster: If it goes up we will not notify them, because they do not qualify.
Senator Ringuette: Exactly. At least with the current process they have the ability to file. Now what you are saying is that they will be automatically dismissed, unless I did not hear you well in your explanation to Senator Nancy Ruth.
Ms. Foster: They can request an administrative review, which is the official reconsideration. The department will look at file and ensure we have the hours correct, ensure the information from the employer is correct, and confirm that our decision based on the number of hours is accurate. It really is a black and white question: Do you have the number of hours that you need or not?
They can request a reconsideration of that decision, which the department will do, then we will notify them if the hours are not changed, that they still do not qualify, and they have the right to appeal that to the general division; the Employment Insurance section. If they lose that appeal, they do not have the right to file a second appeal to the appeal division, because there is no reasonable chance of success.
Senator Ringuette: I am assuming that probably we will not have the opportunity to have the minister before us, so I am taking the liberty of asking Ms. Foster the following questions for the department.
The Chair: You mean the minister of HRSDC?
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
I know that you do not have these answers, so you can file them ASAP to our clerk.
How many employees in your department got a notice letter of layoff by province and by classification? How many of these letters went to EXs and DMs? How many staffers in your department are not under the Public Service Employment Act and under what classifications? What is the cost in your department for program management i.e. the total salaries, expenses, bonuses for management level of your department and programs?
Ms. Foster: I do not have that information.
Senator Callbeck: In view of the time, I will just ask one short question. You say that you will save $25 million by going from four tribunals to one. Could you provide the committee with analysis or breakdown as to where that $25 million comes from? Where are the savings?
Ms. Foster: I can give you the general breakdown. The majority of the savings come from the move from three- member panels to one-member panels, and the travel and per diems associated with the reduced number of members.
The other part of the savings comes from the move from four administrative bodies that currently provide support to these tribunals to one administrative body to support the one tribunal. The remainder is really coming from moving away from paper-based photocopying six copies of very thick files for six-member panels. For example, for six people on a CCPD case, we need to make only one copy. There is significant paper reduction.
Senator Callbeck: That is a very general answer. I would like to see a written answer as to where the savings of $25 million are coming from.
Ms. Foster: Of course.
The Chair: That concludes Division 6, and we now have Division 7 and HRSDC. Thank you for your assistance. We will call on Mr. Peter Edwards and Ms. Jackie Holden.
I should point out while we are changing witnesses that for the witnesses who just left — and presumably those who are arriving — this is their third day to be here with us waiting to be heard. We are now on Division 7 at page 227, Consolidation of Privacy Codes.
[Translation]
Peter Edwards, Acting Corporate Secretary, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: Mr. Chair, my colleague and I are very happy to have this opportunity to appear before the committee to talk to you about the provisions regarding the protection of personal information.
[English]
Division 7 of Part 4 of the budget implementation bill is a good bit of housekeeping which will amalgamate and harmonize the five privacy codes currently in place in our department. The privacy codes are in place to protect personal information under the department's control, particularly with respect to when and how we can share it with others.
This protection goes beyond the basic safeguards in the Privacy Act, given the highly sensitive nature of the personal information which we collect. The amalgamated privacy code uses pre-existing provisions from five acts and reinforces the fundamental value that citizens' personal information is privileged and should only be used in accordance with our department's legislative framework. It will greatly streamline departmental activities in this area and provide a consistent approach. We will also improve the integrity of our programs.
For example, the privacy code currently allows for the disclosure of personal information with other countries for the administration and enforcement of Canadian law under agreed upon conditions where the minister considers it advisable. This has been possible for the Employment Insurance program and the amalgamation will allow us to pursue stronger integrity for the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security.
Looking at page 228, clause 285, which amends section 36(1) of the departmental act, it will be amended to make explicit our authority to disclose information to provinces in support of provincial activities subject to conditions, and the prescription of the provincial activity in regulations. This change will ensure that operational needs of provincial programs and services will be met, and support work on important federal provincial files such as labour market development agreements.
Looking at page 227, clause 282(3), authority to disclose information contained in a Social Insurance Register will also be moved from the Employment Insurance Act and Privacy Act to the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act. This will enhance privacy protection by allowing such information to be governed by the same privacy requirements and safeguards as other HRSDC programs.
We are happy to take questions.
The Chair: Clause 33 was the last one you made reference to?
Mr. Edwards: Page 227, clause 282(3).
The Chair: The subsection is repealed?
Mr. Edwards: That is right. The effect of that is moving the Social Insurance Register under the same privacy code as our other programs.
The Chair: Can you go through these other clauses quickly and tell us how that impacts what you have just told us?
Mr. Edwards: All of the clauses, sir?
The Chair: It will not take you very long.
Jackie Holden, Director, Access to Information and Privacy, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: I would be happy do so. Beginning with clauses 282(1) and (2), those are essentially minor modifications to ensure consistency in linguistic accuracy. Those are —
The Chair: That is important.
Ms. Holden: As Mr. Edwards has noted, clause 282(3) effectively repeals subsection 30(3) of the DHRSD Act, so Part IV of the act will make available under the Social Insurance Register which is referred to in section 139(5) of the EI Act. It essentially folds the Social Insurance Register under the DHRSD Act, making it subject to the same provisions and protections with respect to personal information related there.
On clause 283 and the protection of information, there is a modification. That section is being amended to make necessary adjustments to references resulting from the consolidation of provisions that were formerly in the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act. The fact we are moving from five to one is pulling those into the one consolidated code. It is just cleanup.
There is a modification in clause 284, the availability of information to individuals, representatives and members of Parliament. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that no current authorities under the existing section 104.01(3) of the Canada Pension Plan are lost. Again, it is for consistency. The format of subsection 33(2) of the DHRSD Act has also changed to list the persons to whom information may be made available, and that is similar to the current structure of subsection 104.01(3) of the Canada Pension Plan just for the purpose of improving readability of the section. This again is ensuring that we have similar provisions and coverage from the various five moving into the one consolidated privacy code.
Clause 284 relates to availability of information to federal institutions. There is a modification there, and it relates to the fact that there is no longer a minister of the Department of Social Development, so again bringing that into the consolidated DHRSD Act.
With respect to clause 285, availability of information to provincial authorities, as Mr. Edwards has already noted, subsection 36(1) of the DHRSD Act is being amended. It allows us to provide personal information to the government of a province or a public body created under the law of a province for the administration or enforcement of their activities, as well as laws, to ensure that all operational needs of provincial partners may be covered under the new consolidated privacy regime and to ensure consistency.
On clause 286, information relative to social insurance numbers, the amendment results from the consolidation of provisions that were formerly in the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act. Specifically, this section is being added to the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act as a result of the repeal of certain sections under the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act, and replicates the same provisions. It is providing the same level of protection and just ensuring consistency with the one privacy code.
Clause 286, available of information to certain persons and bodies, is a new section. Again, the amendment results from consolidation of provisions that were formerly in the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act, and the repeal of sections of the CPP and OAS act and a replication of those provisions.
In clause 287, there is a modification, and the section is amended to adjust reference to provisions to take into account the addition of new sections 36.1 and 36.2 of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act.
As you will note, a number of these are directly related to the amalgamation of codes, going from five to one, to ensure that all existing protections are maintained.
Clause 288 relates to research or statistical purposes, and it is modified. It results from the consolidation of provisions that were formerly in the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act. Specifically, section 38 is being amended to incorporate the former equivalent disclosure provisions from the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan. Currently, the Canada Pension Plan provides that information may be made available for research or statistical purposes to any person or body, including those referred to in section 105 of the Canada Pension Plan. Section 105 of the Canada Pension Plan authorizes the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to enter into agreements with provincial governments providing a comprehensive pension plan; so it enables us to work effectively with provincial governments.
Therefore, section 105 is unique to the Canada Pension Plan, and in order to ensure that through the amalgamation of the privacy codes no authorities are lost as a result of this consolidation, a reference to section 105 of the Canada Pension Plan in section 38 of the DHRSD Act was required.
Moving to clause 289, some modification of use of information for research purposes, it results from the consolidation of provisions formerly in the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act. Specifically, it is amended to incorporate former equivalent provisions from the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan, and because section 105 is unique to the Canada Pension Plan, a reference to this section is necessary to ensure that through the consolidation of the privacy codes no authorities were being lost.
Clause 290, with respect to the offence provision, is being modified, and it results from the consolidation of provisions that were formerly in the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act, and amendments to the DHRSD Act. It adds provisions regarding the availability of information contained in the social insurance register.
With respect to clause 291 and regulations, there is a change being made there. Paragraph 43(b) is amended to reference the numbering changes that were made to section 35. The former section 35(2) is now 35(1), and paragraph 43(c) is being added to reflect the amendment made to section 36 whereby personal information may be made available to the government of a province or to a public body created under the law of a province for the administration or enforcement of their activities, in addition to laws. That will then provide authority to make regulations prescribing provincial activities for which information may be made available.
Then moving to clause 292, it is a minor change. It is just a heading being replaced. The heading before section 104 of the Canada Pension Plan is replaced to reflect the repeal of the sections of the Canada Pension Plan governing the protection of personal information, and such personal information will be governed by the new consolidated privacy code in the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act.
Clause 293(1) is a consequential amendment related to the repeal of former sections 104.01 to 104.11, so again, just cleanup.
The Chair: Is that the old heading that was ``protection of information'' and now called ``availability of information''?
Ms. Holden: That is correct.
The Chair: That is an interesting change, is it not?
Ms. Holden: Yes, accessibility, availability.
Senator Buth: Can I just clarify that? The old was ``accessibility'' and now it is ``availability''?
Ms. Holden: ``Accessibilité aux renseignements'' — availability of information, so it is essentially a consequential amendment.
The Chair: What was the old name?
Senator Buth: What was the old name?
Ms. Holden: It was ``protection.''
The Chair: It is going from ``protection,'' which speaks about the public and people's information, to ``availability.'' It is quite a different psychological heading, is it not?
Ms. Holden: Certainly, but the protections being provided under the consolidation are completely consistent with the existing protections. That was certainly the intent of the shift, and moving to one code is to maintain all of the existing provisions and protections and to provide, in fact, additional protection with respect to moving the social insurance registry in under the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act.
The Chair: Thank you. Carry on. You are almost through.
Ms. Holden: Clause 293(2) is a modification and a repeal as a result of subsection 104(3) no longer being required, as a result of the repeal of sections 104.01 to 104.11 of the Canada Pension Plan. It is therefore being repealed.
Clause 294 relates to consequential amendments to the Canada Pension Plan and availability of information within federal institutions. Again, as mentioned in the last section, sections 104 to 104.11 of the Canada Pension Plan are repealed and amalgamated under Part 4 of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act. Former subsections 104.03(3) and (4) of the Canada Pension Plan are just renumbered and amended to replace the reference to the Department of Social Development with a reference to the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development. A new heading ``Agreement with Provinces'' is added immediately before section 105, the Canada Pension Plan, again, essentially ensuring consistency and clarity.
Clause 295 is consequential amendments to the CPP. A new heading is added just after section 105 of the CPP entitled ``Oaths, Affidavits, Declarations and Affirmations.''
Clause 296 has consequential amendments to the OAS act. There is a reference to section 33.1 of the OAS act, which is being replaced with a reference to section 41 of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, again, just to ensure consistency with the new consolidated code and the act. It is a consequential amendment related to the repeal of section 33.1 of the Old Age Security Act.
Another consequential amendment, clause 297, is a reference to section 33.1 of the Old Age Security Act, which is now being replaced with the reference, again, to section 41 of the DHRSD Act, a consequential amendment related to repeal of section 33.1 of the Old Age Security Act. The rationale is similar for clause 298.
With clause 299, the current section is being amended. The reason for the change is that the provisions from subsection 33.01 to subsection 33.1 of the Old Age Security Act, the section governing use and disclosure of personal information, are being repealed and amalgamated under the new privacy code and would fall under Part 4 of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act. Also, the new subsection 33.1 replicates former sections of the OAS Act with necessary adjustments to ensure that the amalgamation is done consistently.
Clause 300 is an amendment to Schedule II of the Access to Information Act. It effectively strikes out the reference to the Canada Pension Plan, as the relevant provisions of that act are being repealed and amalgamated under Part 4 of the Human Resources and Skills Development Act. It is the same thing with clause 301 in that the schedule to the Access to Information Act is being amended for a similar purpose. With clause 302, consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act are required to amend the section numbers, so it is just a numbering change.
Then there is the coming into force with the proposed wording that certain sections will come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor-in-Council.
The Chair: That is very helpful. Well done. Thank you very much. You got us through it. You do not want to carry on to Division 8 regarding social insurance number cards?
Ms. Holden: It is tempting, but I will leave it for my colleagues.
The Chair: I thought it might be tempting, but we will not go there until we have honourable senators clarify a few points.
Senator L. Smith: I have a simple question. I want to go back to the chair's point that he brought up earlier in your presentation, which is the rationale from protection of personal information to availability of information. Can you just walk us through the rationale one more time? It seems to be a fundamental shift.
Mr. Edwards: I would like to pause for a second and take a look at clause 292, which is the one that the question was about.
I note in particular that this is a consequential amendment. This is really a housekeeping piece of legislation. The protections are being moved into one act, so what is left over in the Canada Pension Act does not deal with protection.
The protections are not lost; they are moved in the amalgamation of the code under the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act. Consequentially, as a result of this housekeeping measure, what is left in the CPP Act is not dealing with protection but specifically availability. It is just semantics for what is left in the act. The protections are retained and brought into the other act.
The Chair: On that note, would that be the same basic rationale for clause 299, where you have a new heading there, Availability of Information? Is it the same rationale?
Mr. Edwards: Yes.
Ms. Holden: That is correct.
Senator Ringuette: I have a technical question. My understanding is that, right now, under your social insurance number, you will have whatever is EI, whatever is CPP, and whatever is old age information. What you are saying now is that all of these silos will be brought under one heading of your social insurance number; is that correct? It is a yes or no answer, really: Are you bringing all that information under just one access code that would be the social insurance number of a person?
Mr. Edwards: The provisions here make no changes to the use of the social insurance number. It takes the existing provisions from the Employment Insurance Act and moves them into the departmental act so that the same protections of the personal information related to the number are afforded.
In this instance, that means that, under the current departmental privacy code, there are quite high levels of protection. If information is revealed, for example, it can actually be a Criminal Code offence. That was not the case for the social insurance registry information under the EI Act. Moving it into the departmental Act actually raises that, but it does nothing with respect to the usage of the number itself.
Senator Ringuette: So the answer is ``no'' in that all that information will not come into one data bank.
Mr. Edwards: That is correct.
Senator Ringuette: The answer is ``no.'' Thank you very much.
In regard to all of these changes, has the Privacy Commissioner been asked to review if all these changes are correct under the privacy laws of Canada?
Mr. Edwards: Thank you for the question. We have an ongoing dialogue with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. The privacy code in the departmental act was passed several years ago and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner was consulted at the time for the creation of that original code. We have discussed these changes with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and we continue to consult them on all of our work around privacy.
Senator Ringuette: No, but what was the result of the consultation? Was she agreeable with the changes that you are making?
Mr. Edwards: The office raised no concerns.
Senator Ringuette: No concerns, okay.
You have mentioned the availability of information to provincial authorities, to other federal institutions, and you also said to members of Parliament. Does the person in question not have to sign an authorization for you to provide that information? Is it not the basic requirement that the person to whom the information is related has to sign an authority for that information to be provided to another entity?
Ms. Holden: Certainly when we are talking about an individual's personal information, that is the case: We need to obtain consent to be able to share and use that information.
With respect to the sharing of information for the purposes of, as you mentioned, provincial activities or for international use, that is programmatic use of information. It is essentially looking at agreements with those organizations for broader use. For example, we mentioned labour market development agreements.
It is being able to ensure that we can have effective functioning of our programs and work effectively with provincial governments on major initiatives in a way that we have not necessarily been able to efficiently do with the level of authority that we would like to. This will then enable us to do that more effectively.
Senator Ringuette: How about with members of Parliament?
Ms. Holden: With respect to members of Parliament, information sharing exists already. For example, there is the telephone inquiry resolution service for parliamentarians. Essentially the change in the clause regarding the sharing of information for individuals ensures that we have appropriate consent and that there is an effective process in place for the making available of an individual's personal information. It is ensuring that their consent is obtained and they are comfortable with their information being shared.
Usually it is to obtain information for their own purposes; if they are having issues with a claim or with a problem with the department.
Senator Ringuette: Okay, so the current requirement that a constituent has to sign an authorization to the member of Parliament is still in place, is it not?
Ms. Holden: It is maintained, yes.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: My questions are exactly in the same vein. In new clause 35, when you say, at the end: ``conditions agreed upon by the minister and the federal institution'', with regard to the sharing of information, does that mean that for parliamentarians there will be, between the minister and the Senate of Canada or the House of Commons, an agreement protocol that will set out the conditions governing the sharing of information? Or will this have to be done on an individual basis with each parliamentarian?
Ms. Holden: Concerning the program for parliamentarians, as I mentioned earlier, an agreement should be signed by the members of Parliament that will give the authority to the members of their staff, to reply, on behalf of the member's office, to the questions put by Canadians.
Senator Nolin: So an agreement is to be signed individually with each parliamentarian, rather than an agreement between the minister and the institution, the institution in this case being the parliamentarian as such?
Ms. Holden: It is a program that already exists within the department.
Senator Nolin: I understand, but I am raising it because you are amending section 35. The section had three paragraphs previously and now it has only two.
Ms. Holden: The program as it exists currently in the department will remain unchanged; the only change is being made to reflect the fact that there is no longer a minister of social development. If you read subclause 35(2), you will understand the amendment.
[English]
Information may be made available to a minister or a public officer of a prescribed federal institution, other than the Department of Social Development,
[Translation]
That is why we made that change, because that no longer exists. It will come under Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.
Senator Nolin: I understand. So there is a protocol with each parliamentarian's office?
Ms. Holden: Exactly.
Senator Ringuette: I understand the idea of a protocol governing the exchange of information between the minister, the department and the parliamentarian, but this should not deprive the citizen who needs help in the first place of the right to authorize that parliamentarian to direct information.
Senator Nolin: That is certain.
Senator Ringuette: Both steps are now maintained.
Ms. Holden: Absolutely.
Mr. Edwards: Completely. This reflects the nature of these clarifications, because the text regarding the minister already exists in the current provisions.
[English]
It is for the administration or enforcement of prescribed federal or provincial law or activity if the minister considers it advisable and the information is made available subject to conditions.
[Translation]
All of this already exists. It simply seems like a lot of text has been added, but on the contrary, it has not. It eliminates the reference to the Department of Social Development.
[English]
Ms. Holden: Just to reinforce that, the way that it works is very much the individual coming to his or her member of Parliament to seek assistance from the department, and we absolutely obtain consent. It does not happen unless that happens.
Senator Peterson: Recently, a considerable amount of personal information about our veterans became public. How did this occur and what are we doing to mitigate that in the future?
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chair, I am afraid we are not in a position to talk about what happens at Veterans Affairs.
I can say that the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada places a very high priority on the protection of the information of Canadians which we have in our possession. Some of them may be veterans, but I believe that the senator is referring to activities that may have occurred in another department.
Senator Peterson: How would we follow up on that?
The Chair: You can talk to Veterans Affairs or the Privacy Commissioner.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I wanted to ask about clauses 296, 297 and 298, which all deal with consequential amendments for prisons and reformatories. I cannot see in the notes or in the text what on earth that means. Can you tell me, please?
Ms. Holden: Currently, what we have done is added ``under section 41 of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act.'' It essentially replaces a reference from the Old Age Security Act with a reference to section 41 of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development.
Senator Nancy Ruth: What does it mean?
Ms. Holden: Basically, they do not receive a pension if they are currently imprisoned. It is just moving the section.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you for your explanations.
You said that there are no problems as far as the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. Now, there is an Information Commissioner, and I am not sure what that Information Commissioner does. Was that person consulted on this legislation, or should he have been consulted?
Mr. Edwards: The Office of the Information Commissioner has, if you wish, the flip side mandate from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner is very concerned about making sure that departments do not release or share information or misuse private information belonging to Canadians, whereas the office of the information Commissioner is more focused on ensuring that Canadians have access to information about government programs.
As these are the sections of our acts which deal with protecting information, we did not consult the Office of the Information Commissioner.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Hervieux-Payette?
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Why were other databases not included? Why was only this database included? How many databases on individuals are there aside from the one containing their social insurance number, used for two purposes? Do all departments have access to social insurance numbers? Where do they get their information? I am thinking about the people from Revenue Canada, as well as those at Veterans Affairs. Is there harmonization of the policy on social insurance numbers? Is there only one source where people can get that information? With a social insurance number, can you get information everywhere? Can you go to ten different sites, ten databases, with the same social insurance number, or does everyone with a social insurance number go to the same database?
Mr. Edwards: The question concerns the use the Government of Canada makes of the personal information of Canadians. A lot of departments receive and keep information on Canadians. Our department maintains some very large databases, given that Canadians have access to all sorts of programs concerning youth, among others, from birth to death, that are delivered by our department.
Our code will apply to the protection of all the databases that our department maintains. The Canada Border Services Agency, for instance, is not a part of our department, and so that code will not affect that protection, but will, however, govern the sharing of our information with other agencies or departments.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: When someone is born or passes away, do you automatically receive a request to enter that information or delete something, so that your database is always up-to-date?
Mr. Edwards: That is an excellent question. We have colleagues in the integrity branches who work very hard with other governments, those of the provinces and territories, among others, precisely to ensure that we have up-to-date information, and to avoid, for instance, continuing to deliver a pension during one or two years after a Canadian dies.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: And also to be able to issue it to those who had a right to it but never heard about it, often because they did not have the information needed to obtain it. Do you do that kind of research and do you inform the person that he or she has a right?
Mr. Edwards: That would not be us, but there are other provisions in the bill that will touch on those issues.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: There will not be any budget cuts in that regard?
Mr. Edwards: No.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate your helping us through this particular division. We appreciate your understanding, and this is, I think, the third time that you have been here to present, but this time it went very well. Your colleagues will now come up and deal with Division 8, unless you wanted to stay on, Mr. Edwards.
Division 8 is social insurance number cards at page 235 of the act, and we now have with us Peter Boyd and Yves Bernard.
Peter Boyd, Director General and Departmental Security Officer, Integrity Services Branch, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: It will be just Peter Boyd today.
The Chair: Mr. Boyd, you know the process. If you could please tell us what you are hoping to achieve with these eight pages of clauses leading up to Division 9, it would be appreciated.
Mr. Boyd: Certainly. The main premise behind this section is to change the social insurance number plastic card issued by the EI Commission from mandatory to discretionary. That will enable, over time, the phasing out in the use of the card. There are various reasons why we would want to do that. One, there would be a modest savings. Also, it is actually not required for delivering our services. It is important that people have a social insurance number, and we will provide them a letter indicating such, but we would phase out the actual plastic card. As everyone here knows, it is a simple plastic card. There are no security mechanisms on it, so relying on it as a mechanism for identifying clients is not prudent.
All provisions relate to doing that, as well as reflect the changes that were just discussed around privacy. Section 304 primarily focuses on changing ``shall issue a card'' to ``may issue a card.'' Section 305 makes a similar change in the CPP act, of which act requires the presentation of the card to your employer. We have to make that no longer mandatory. Section 306 updates references to name change, and instead of changing the card, changing the social insurance record.
The Chair: Will the number stay the same?
Mr. Boyd: Yes. We do not change the number.
Section 307 relates to what you were just talking about, the move of some of the provisions to the HRSDC Act. It includes the financial provisions so the status quo financial arrangements continue. The service is funded out of the EI account, so that will continue as previously.
Section 308 deals with some of the details around that move to the HRSDC Act. Sections 309, 310, 311 and 312 all deal with consequential amendments. The Canadian Wheat Board Act, the Farm Income Protection Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Wage Earner Protection Program refer to the card, so this makes changes to allow for the future phase-out over time.
Sections 313 and 314 are simply provisions for when these various things come into play by order-in-council.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you for your explanation. If a person is in an office somewhere filling out a form and they forget their social insurance number, now they have a plastic card to refer to. I take it when the plastic card is gone, if that person is filling out an application and they forget their number, there is no way they will be able to complete the form that day until they go and visit a Service Canada centre or make a request by mail. Is that right?
Mr. Boyd: By mail or through a Service Canada centre, but it should be noted that currently we do not recommend that people carry the plastic card with them. Given the role of the social insurance number as a file number for a variety of programs, we actually recommend that people not carry that card with them. That is one of the concerns relating to identity theft.
Senator Callbeck: What percentage of Canadian do you think know their social insurance number?
Mr. Boyd: I do not have that number off the top of my head, but there have been surveys several years back on that.
Senator Callbeck: There have been surveys?
Mr. Boyd: That is my understanding, so I can look into that and get back to you.
Senator Callbeck: You will get back to the committee on that. You mentioned that this will save dollars. How much, roughly?
Mr. Boyd: Approximately $1.5 million per year.
Senator Ringuette: You indicated that this card was never issued for the purpose of it being used as an identity card. Is that correct?
Mr. Boyd: That is correct.
Senator Ringuette: Then how come when a Canadian applies for a passport, one of the items requested as identification is their social insurance number card, which bears their signature on the back?
Mr. Boyd: I do not believe the social insurance number card has a signature on the back.
Senator Ringuette: However, it is used for identification purposes.
Mr. Boyd: People do ask for it. I do not want to speak for the identity requirements of Passport Canada, but I do know that it is not the primary document they use for validating your identity. They use birth certificate, driver's licence, a bunch of other documents. It would be a supporting document.
Senator Ringuette: Yes, it is. Is this legislation saying that it basically cannot be used for that purpose?
Mr. Boyd: This amendment does not make any changes to what people can and cannot do with a social insurance number.
Senator Peterson: On the same line, more and more people are asking for social insurance numbers. Who do you have to provide it to? A lot of people you just deny, forget it. Who has the authority to require one to provide their number? Who controls all of that?
Mr. Boyd: There are provisions within the EI Act and other acts and regulations around needing to show your card and your social insurance number. That is primarily the EI Act, the CPP act and the like. There are around 26 — do not quote me on the exact number. It appears in the TBS policy on use of the social insurance number. There are about 26 pieces of legislation that refer to the social insurance number.
Senator Peterson: One of them being the CRA, who are the biggest beneficiary of this number, I imagine?
Mr. Boyd: CRA does use it, yes.
Senator Peterson: They can authorize different groups to demand that you provide that number. Is that true?
Mr. Boyd: There are places in their acts — without getting too much into how they do their thing since that is their business — such as interest-bearing accounts where they do ask for a social insurance number for tax purposes.
Senator L. Smith: On page 235, subsections 28.1(1) and (2), we see the following: ``The Commission shall maintain a register containing the names of the persons referred in subsection (1) . . . .'' Is there not a registry that already exists?
Mr. Boyd: It does exist, and this carries over that existing provision into the new legislation.
Senator L. Smith: There is nothing new about it; it is just an add-on?
Mr. Boyd: It is the exact same registry and the exact same information but with improved piracy framework, as was discussed earlier.
The Chair: You have gone through this very nicely for us, Mr. Boyd. We appreciate it very much. Thank you for your understanding. We will move on to the next area.
Mr. Boyd: My pleasure.
The Chair: We are now at Division 9, amendments relating to the Parks Canada agency. That is at page 242, number 9. It only goes for one page. We kept you here all that time. Sometimes very profound things can be contained in one page.
Ms. Strysio and Mr. Mitchell, you have the floor. Help us through Division 9.
Margaret Strysio, Director, Strategic Planning and Reporting, Parks Canada: Good morning, my name is Margaret Strysio and I am responsible for strategic planning. I am joined by Jonah Mitchell, who is responsible for law enforcement with Parks Canada.
Division 9 of the bill proposes changes in two key areas. The first relates to collaboration on enforcement for environmental types of activities. This is covered in clauses 315, 316, 322 and 323. Mr. Mitchell will take the committee through these clauses first, after which I will speak to the committee about the remaining clauses which relate mainly to streamlining of planning and reporting initiatives.
Jonah Mitchell, Acting Director, Law Enforcement Branch, Parks Canada: Good morning, honourable senators. To set the context, currently Parks Canada park wardens' enforcement activity is limited to the agency's mandate for national parks, national historic sites and national marine conservation areas.
Clause 315 would allow for park wardens to assist other ministers to enforce their acts and regulations outside of parks and national historic sites within the following constraints: the act or regulation must relate to the environment, the act or regulation must be listed in the schedule to the Parks Canada Agency Act, the location of the enforcement activity must be such that it is more convenient and efficient for park wardens to respond than other federal enforcement officers. Also, there is an agreement to provide these enforcement activities on behalf of the other minister. Finally, the park wardens are designated and trained to enforce the other act or regulation.
Essentially, the intent of changes is to allow for faster and lower cost response to environmental enforcement difficulties — particularly in remote areas in the North — where Environment Canada does not have an ongoing presence, but Parks Canada has a park with a warden nearby who could act on their behalf. Clause 316 allows for the Governor-in-Council to add acts and regulations to the schedule of the Parks Canada Agency Act, for which park wardens could assist other bodies in their enforcement activities.
Finally, clauses 322 and 323 restructure the schedule to the agency act to add Parts 3 and 4 for the listing of these associated acts and regulations.
Ms. Strysio: I will move on to the second theme, which is simplifying planning and reporting. I will deal first with clause 320, as clause 317 is consequential to 320. Clause 320 removes the requirement for Parks Canada Agency to prepare a corporate plan and an annual report, as these documents duplicate the report on plans and priorities and the departmental performance report that is already required of all departmental like organizations through the Financial Administration Act, including Parks Canada. This duplicated requirement would be removed by repealing sections 33 and 34, which refer to the corporate plan and annual report. As a consequence, in clause 317 there would be a removal of the reference to the corporate plan in subsection 21(3), since those would be removed and no longer be a requirement.
The Chair: Yesterday or the day before in one of the last hearings we dealt with, we had a section that said ``recommendations by the Auditor General with respect to reports.'' Does this flow from that same recommendation for duplication or cutting down on reports?
Ms. Strysio: It does not flow specifically from that, but clause 321 does refer to removal of the requirement for audited financial statements and the annual review by the Auditor General of the performance information in the departmental performance report.
The Chair: The Auditor General will not have to do that anymore?
Ms. Strysio: That is right. We would submit a report on plans and priorities and a departmental performance report each year that would contain or would have a link to our financial statements, but the Auditor General would no longer need to do an audit of those statements.
Senator Runciman: Mr. Mitchell answered my question with his comments.
The Chair: It is good when the witness anticipates.
Senator Ringuette: These four reports were tabled in Parliament were they not?
Ms. Strysio: Yes. What actually occurred is that we got agreement from Treasury Board that the corporate plan could —
Senator Ringuette: My question is that the current four reports were tabled in the House of Commons and in the Senate to be reviewed by both chambers in regard to your plans and priorities, your performance and your annual report.
Parliament will no longer be reviewing which two reports?
Ms. Strysio: The corporate plan and the departmental performance report. In fact, Treasury Board had agreed that since the two documents contained the exact same information, that tabling of the report on plans and priorities and a departmental performance report actually met both requirements.
Senator Ringuette: I am sorry, but I have looked at departmental plans in regard to priority, P and P. I have also looked at a performance report, and there is no way that these two are equal; P and P sets the priorities in regard to what you want to accomplish and the other one acts as a measure of what you have set out to accomplish. These reports are completely different and they should be tabled by parliamentarians, as all other departments. I am saying this, and Treasury Board can say what they want. Parliamentarians have a responsibility to the taxpayers of Canada to review and it is part of the transparency and accountability of any and all government departments. Without any further ado, I will ask you the same questions and I hope that you will table the answers as soon as possible to our clerk.
In regard to your department, how many employees in your department received a notice letter of layoff by province and by classification? How many were EXs and how many were DMs? How many staffers — I am assuming that you know the difference between an employee and a staffer — in your department are not under the Public Service Employment Act and under what classification? What is the cost in your department for program management, that is, total salaries, expenses, bonuses, et cetera, for the management level of your department and programs?
Chair and colleagues, I hope you understand what is going on here. At a time where this particular agency is being reduced drastically in regard to its human resources — its performance ability in the future — the department is also asking parliamentarians not to review or not be able to have access to documents that provide accountability and transparency in their agency.
Senator Buth: Thank you for being here today. Can you just review what reporting you do and what reporting will be left supposing the bill is passed?
Ms. Strysio: I can go through that for you. Essentially, each year, as do all departmental organizations, we would prepare a report on plans and priorities. That would be tabled in both houses for review. That sets out the objectives and the priorities for the organization over the coming three years.
As well, each year we would prepare a departmental performance report, which would report on performance relative to the plans set out in the report on plans and priorities. That as well would be tabled in both houses at the end of the year, to report back on how we had done.
We are also proposing, as identified in clause 318, that the report on the state of our protected heritage areas, which currently is presented every two years, now be presented every five years and tabled in both houses, in terms of identifying the overall state of our parks and sites and the progress made in establishing new protected heritage areas across Canada. That would be tabled every five years.
At the site level for each and every national historic site, national park and national marine conservation area, a management plan would be prepared and tabled related to the long-term vision, the long-term objectives and plans for that park or site for the coming 10 to 15 years. We would have a nice cycle of a long-term vision for 10 to 15 years, annual reporting, and annual plans related to overall agency objectives, and every five years a report on the overall state of parks and sites in those systems.
Senator Buth: That is what will continue?
Ms. Strysio: That is right.
Senator Buth: You are continuing to report essentially to Parliament through the plans and priorities, through performance reports, your protected heritage sites and your site levels?
Ms. Strysio: That is right.
Senator Buth: Can you comment why the protected heritage sites went from two-year to five-year reporting?
Ms. Strysio: The overall state of all of our parks across the country, all of our national historic sites, from year to year is not really enough time to see an appreciable change or to identify trends in things such as ecological integrity, commemorative integrity, the state of visitation at the site, the condition of our assets. A five-year time frame provides a good amount of time to more accurately reflect changes or trends taking place.
Senator Buth: That is especially so when you look at the terms, as you mentioned, ecological, et cetera.
Ms. Strysio: That is right.
Senator Buth: You are saying every two years it is hard to measure some of the longer-term changes that are happening.
Ms. Strysio: That is right.
Senator Buth: Does this report on protected heritage sites and the state of the parks report on new parks and developments that have been put into place?
Ms. Strysio: Yes, it does. It reports on the state of establishment of new parks, sites and national marine conservation areas. We also report on that on a yearly basis, because that is one of our key objectives. We report on that on a yearly basis in our departmental performance report as well, and then every five years a more umbrella report.
Senator Buth: That is the report, when we had Parks Canada in earlier, we were talking about the fact that there has been a 50 per cent increase in protected sites across Canada.
Ms. Strysio: That is right.
Senator Eaton: How good is the overall state of our national parks right now? You have gone from two to five years. You must have some overall idea how good their condition is.
Ms. Strysio: Our overall goal is to maintain and improve ecological integrity in our protected areas, and we have been quite successful. I cannot give you any specific details on that, but I could table that report with the committee. We have been able to maintain or improve in many areas and we have taken a much more targeted approach to doing restoration initiatives in areas where we are relatively certain that we can have an impact. We have shown some good success.
Senator Eaton: In other words, you will do it on rotation. Take Nahanni, for instance; you will do that one year and then five years later you will come back to it?
Ms. Strysio: We have a five-year monitoring cycle.
Senator Eaton: That is for each park?
Ms. Strysio: Yes. Every five years we will collect all the newest information and report on the overall state related to ecological integrity, commemorative integrity, establishment of parks, visitor experience, relationship with Aboriginal peoples and stakeholders, et cetera.
Senator Eaton: Could you almost say that if you do it every five years it will be a more in-depth study?
Ms. Strysio: It allows us to demonstrate real change or to demonstrate trends, which from one year to the next probably could not be done.
Senator L. Smith: As a follow-up to Senator Ringuette's request for information, when you are providing the head count reduction, would you give us the percentage, just so we have a balanced perspective? In business, a head count is one thing but percentage is another, because it gives you a bit of a different overview.
Ms. Strysio: Certainly.
The Chair: At page 243, clauses 318 and 319, every five years a report is done, and then the minister shall review the management plan, et cetera, every ten years?
Ms. Strysio: That is right.
The Chair: How frequently was the minister reviewing the plans previously?
Ms. Strysio: We moved from five years to ten years. The management plan set out the long-term strategic direction and vision for that park or site.
Senator Callbeck: There is an amendment in here that allows Parks Canada to take the responsibility of properties outside its normal scope of national parks and historic sites. That concerns me because when I look at the estimates here and how you have been cut, I do not know how you will take anything else on, let alone carry out your own mandate.
These other properties that you may be taking over for other departments, will you be paid by those departments for taking on this responsibility?
Mr. Mitchell: Specifically, Senator Callbeck, the intent is that it be quite limited, and particularly in remote and northern areas where there may be an Environment Canada migratory bird sanctuary or wildlife area close by. We are not taking on full management of the protected area. It is solely for enforcement response by our enforcement officers who may be located closer than Environment Canada officers, who tend to be more centrally located. In that case, the measure would provide some savings to Environment Canada in terms of travel and they would be covering the costs of training and our officers being able to respond on their behalf.
Senator Callbeck: I understand it may be limited, but there must be a cost involved here. Will Parks Canada be reimbursed for any of these costs?
Mr. Mitchell: The training costs as well as the travel costs for our staff to respond will be covered by Environment Canada.
The Chair: Thank you for helping us through the Parks Canada section here. We wish you well. The work you do in Parks Canada is very important to all Canadians.
Senators, I am pleased to announce that the next three divisions will be done by other Senate committees — 10 and 11 by Banking and 12 by Defence. We are now moving from Division 9 to Division 13. That is at page 280.
We are very pleased to have Mr. Glenn Campbell to help us with what appears to be not too complicated a section, but we never know. Can you help us, Mr. Campbell?
Glenn Campbell, Director, International Policy and Institutions Division, Department of Finance Canada: I can. Good morning, honourable senators.
Division 13 relates to strengthening the legitimacy and effectiveness of the International Monetary Fund. The IMF is a key global institution in assisting the international economic community manage economic crises.
Clause 375 amends section 7 of the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act to reflect an increase in Canada's quota subscription from $6.3 billion, what we call special drawing rights — also called SDRs — to about $11 billion.
This provision relates to the ratification of the 2010 quota and governance reform resolution of the board of governors of the International Monetary Fund, an agreement of 188 countries.
The SDR, as I referred to, is a unit account of the IMF and is worth approximately $1.50 Canadian at current exchange rates, and it fluctuates. Canada's quota subscription — i.e., our financial contribution or commitment — will therefore increase to approximately $17 billion from $10 billion. That is a commitment and not a provision of funds.
Moving on to a housekeeping measure, clause 376 amends section 13 of the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act to change the date of the annual report to Parliament under the act from March 31 to September 30. This will align the date of the government's annual report on the operation of the IMF and the World Bank with the annual report on development assistance. That will just be prior to the annual meetings of both the IMF and the World Bank.
As I said, this is an agreement by 188 countries. This is really a catch-up provision from 2010. There is also a corresponding treaty change now sitting before Parliament related to some governance structural changes at the IMF where basically Europe is giving up some influence at the front and some board seats to emerging markets.
There is no fiscal cost to this provision. Basically this is treatment of our international foreign exchange reserves. Any loans are repayable with interest. Again, this is merely Canada's commitment, along with other countries, to provide funds, if needed, to the IMF. This is basically a catch-up provision.
I am prepared to take any questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Would this be shown up as a non-budgetary item in the Main Estimates that we in this committee review?
Mr. Campbell: That is correct — non-budgetary.
The Chair: That means it does not change the bottom line. I think that is the definition of non-budgetary.
Mr. Campbell: That is correct. Basically, it is an offsetting. There is a liability asset batch here. It is basically the treatment of our foreign exchange reserves with no fiscal cost.
Senator Ringuette: This fund is managed by the Bank of Canada, is it not?
Mr. Campbell: No, this is the International Monetary Fund based in Washington, D.C., to which Canada is a member, along with 188 other countries. The Minister of Finance is a governor of the fund, to which Canada then appoints an executive director for a constituency of countries at the fund.
Senator Ringuette: So you are saying that in this fiscal year, the fund will be going from $10 billion to $17 billion; is that right?
Mr. Campbell: This is Canada's potential contribution or commitment to the fund — it is our share. In aggregate, the fund has near $1 trillion of commitments from all countries around the world, and Canada's share — our core capital quota share — is going from $10 billion to $17 billion. Basically, the net impact on Canada's commitments is around $24 billion in total to the IMF. As it stands, there is only about $4 billion drawn on Canada's account for various programs around the world.
We had temporary loans through the past few years, much like every other country, that are now being converted into quota. It is important to do quota because quota means voting rights and that gives us commensurate influence at the IMF.
Senator Ringuette: To ensure that I understand you correctly, we have committed $24 billion to the IMF.
Mr. Campbell: In aggregate.
Senator Ringuette: Of that, $4 billion have been drawn upon by the IMF. Why bring it up to $24 billion if only $4 billion have been drawn for the present time? Add maybe another $4 billion for potential emergency measures. I do not understand why we commit the Government of Canada, the Canadian taxpayers, up to $24 billion if only $4 billion have been used properly by the IMF towards our partnership in the IMF. Why is that?
Mr. Campbell: The simple answer is that the IMF has one singular, large number of its available resources to lend to any particular country in time of need — any country that faces a balance of payment crisis, which often means there is an impact on their exchange rate or they have difficulty borrowing on financial markets to finance themselves. Therefore, the IMF needs to have a very large aggregate number to demonstrate to financial markets that any one of our countries who belong to the IMF, if they need it and meet the conditions, they can all come to the IMF and the funds are immediately available to avoid crises.
Senator Ringuette: You have not explained to me why the Government of Canada and the taxpayers of Canada should commit $24 billion to the IMF.
Mr. Campbell: Again, this is merely a financial commitment. It is not an actual allocation of dollars.
Senator Ringuette: I understand that, but it is still a commitment, and a commitment is like a letter of credit: pay the piper.
Mr. Campbell: I think that would be an appropriate question to ask the minister.
I did want to specify, though, that the functioning role of the IMF and its role in the global financial system and the monetary system is to be able to demonstrate that it has the resources if need be. Canada pays its proportionate share along with every other country into that fund in order to demonstrate that, overnight — tomorrow — if a country needed it, they would be able to go. This is all basically established; the IMF says, ``This is the amount of fire power behind us and we are willing to stand by hind our countries in times of need.''
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Can I conclude we get more rights when it comes time to vote? Does this give more weight to Canada to discuss the whole question of how the IMF is attributing these funds at a certain point? What is behind this intention to have a larger commitment? I understand that we went up. The money is not spent, but what is the advantage to Canada to go that high?
Mr. Campbell: The first answer is, yes, there is an advantage to Canada on our quota because quota is immediately translated into voting rights and therefore influence on the decisions made at the IMF. For example, country X comes forward and says, ``I need $1 billion.'' In order to get that $1 billion, all countries step forward and say, ``These are the conditions under which you will receive the funds. These are the changes you will need to make in your economy and the terms upon which you will pay it back, and you will pay it back.'' The fund has primary creditor status.
This is separate from the issue of quantum. The issue of quantum is about the role in financial markets demonstrating that the fund has resources if needed. Canada is paying our share because, at the end of the day, it means our voting power is protected. When all governments decided to double their quoting share, Canada agreed we would double. Therefore our voting rights also doubled in the IMF.
That is why it is important for Canada to adhere to international agreements with respect to IMF.
Senator Peterson: Would the IMF be involved in the Greek crisis?
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
Mr. Campbell: Yes, it is.
Senator Peterson: Subsequently, it could be Italy and Spain, as it unfolds?
In what sense; how do they contribute? Is it that up to this amount could be called, or is it on a country-by-country basis? That is a pretty big number that is coming up.
Mr. Campbell: It is a very big number. ``Yes,'' in terms of all those countries. Greece does have a financial assistance program that includes funding from the International Monetary Fund, as well as the European Union. This is what you often hear in the papers called the troika, which is the IMF, which is the international community, partnering with the European Union and its central bank to provide an assistance package. Since it is so large, we did not want to expose the IMF to all of those liabilities. Therefore, all governments have basically financed Greece's reform package on that front.
Any country that is a member is eligible to come to the fund at any time for assistance providing they adhere to and agree to conditions.
Senator Peterson: We have no choice — if it goes ahead, do we have to participate? Can we opt out; is there any provision to opt out at any time?
Mr. Campbell: Canada does have a very active voice in the decision making around the executive board as to whether a country qualifies and whether they should be getting funding. Canada has been very much a part of that and is an active participant. However, it basically says that, if there is an agreement of countries and a consensus, the IMF can draw on members' resources to pay that program.
Senator Runciman: As a supplementary, is there a relationship with the World Bank? You talked about setting conditions. I know I read about the World Bank assisting a particular economy and setting down some pretty rigid conditions. What is the relationship there and how does that work?
Mr. Campbell: Basically, they are brother and sister institutions, but for the purposes of quota and the financial commitment, they are completely separate. The World Bank pertains to development goals and often gives specific countries funding on various project bases to do development work. The IMF is specifically involved in the monetary system, balance of payment issues, so it is at the macro level — a country borrowing does not have enough money to borrow, does not have enough money to cover its responsibilities and how it manages its macro economy, how it taxes, spends and borrows. Even though they are across the street from one another and they do cooperate, with respect to a country coming and borrowing, they treat every situation differently.
Senator Runciman: Is there no connection with respect to the funding envelope?
Mr. Campbell: No.
Senator Runciman: Is that totally separate?
Mr. Campbell: It is totally separate.
Senator Runciman: Thanks.
Senator Ringuette: In regard to the global number of the 188 countries' quotas committed to IMF, what is it? Of that commitment, how much has already been used as guarantee?
Mr. Campbell: If I understand correctly, the IMF at present has about a trillion dollars worth of resources, and it will increase going forward.
There is an agreement on the table at a G20 in which Canada is not participating, but looking backwards, there is about a trillion dollars' worth of resources, of which there is close to half a trillion of commitments that are extended.
Senator Ringuette: Therefore, 50 per cent of that commitment is already extended to back.
Mr. Campbell: It is being actively used in that respect through a number of largely emerging market countries who come forward to the fund to help them adjust to what is going on in the global economy, to insulate themselves from global economic spillovers, as well as the programs that are active in Europe.
Just to go back to the 188 countries, of that, close to US$500 billion that is committed, basically, is proportionality. The IMF draws on commitments from countries in order to ensure the burden is smooth for all countries.
Senator Ringuette: You can understand that already at a trillion, as commitment — I do not know and do not expect you to tell us the expected commitment of 187 other countries — we are already moving to almost doubling, even more, if we are going to $24 billion from $11 billion.
Mr. Campbell: Well, it is 11 to 17 under quota, and there is an additional amount of temporary loans which we already provide.
Let me be crystal clear. The agreement pertained to a quota formula, and the quota formula was agreed to by all countries as the way to measure our size and economic weight in the global economy. That sets your quota.
The amount that they ask Canada to pay is based on the size of our GDP, effectively. All countries that were part of this agreement all decided that they would double their quotas and the formula to determine what each country would pay, and we all agreed to that.
The little difference here that is not reflected in the quota is that there was a small shift in voting power from advanced economies to emerging markets, about 6 per cent. Therefore, we doubled quotas; all countries agreed; there was a formula we all agreed to; and part of that formula made sure that some of these growing emerging markets were able to have a bit more influence at the IMF. That meant our European colleagues had to give up some influence. At the end of the day, our amount is determined by a formula, and everyone's amount is determined by the same formula, so there is proportionality.
Senator Ringuette: I understand, but you know, I also understand that out of backing commitments, there is already a trillion, half of which is already taken up. That is a lot of money, looking at what lies ahead in regard to many countries over which we have no say.
Mr. Campbell: Just one follow-up question, the size and the amount of money and the available money is important. It is what we call ``firewalls,'' and that is that the amount of available resources is what provides a disincentive for markets to misprice their debt that may be on the open market, and having this backing really does support a lot of member countries.
Senator Buth: Thank you very much for your explanations. Just a comment that our change in policy and our approach to IMF is not in the Budget Implementation Act, that what we are doing is just changing, especially on the special drawing rights, to put into legislation commitments that we have already made?
Mr. Campbell: That is correct.
Senator Buth: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you. That is a helpful clarification.
That concludes Division 13. We are over our time.
Mr. Campbell, thank you very much for being here and helping us with something we do not deal with every day. It is important information that you have been able to communicate to us.
Mr. Campbell: You are welcome.
The Chair: Colleagues, we had two witnesses sitting here now for three days with respect to Division 14, but it is over time.
I know you have other obligations, so we will have to ask them to come back again at the next session we have, but we are moving along quite nicely. I will call this meeting to a conclusion at this time, and we will advise as to the time and place of our next meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)