Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 20 - Evidence - May 30, 2012 - Evening meeting
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 30, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 6:45 p.m. to study 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.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, tonight we are resuming our study of 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]
As honourable senators are aware, the committee has been given an order of reference by the Senate to study the subject matter of Bill C-38. This is our ninth meeting, and we are beginning this evening at Division 37 of Part 4 of the bill, which appears at page 341 of the bill.
Once again, we sincerely thank departmental officials who tirelessly appear before us to explain the various clauses of the bill. We will do our best to group divisions this evening because some government officials have been here on more than one occasion to testify. On two occasions this evening, we heard from government officials who have more than one division to deal with. We will try to do both, so we will vary our normal chronological order to try to accommodate our understanding government officials.
As we have done in previous meetings, after there has been an explanation of the overall purpose of the division and specific reference to the clauses that achieve that overall purpose, I will look about to see if any explanation is necessary. If not, we will proceed to the next division.
[Translation]
Tonight, we are starting with division 37. Suzanne Brisebois is here; madam, you have the floor.
[English]
Suzanne Brisebois, Director General, Policy and Operations, PBC, Public Safety Canada: Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today. I will keep my remarks brief, as we are discussing a single amendment.
As you know, the Parole Board of Canada is an independent administrative tribunal that has exclusive authorities under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or CCRA, to make decisions on the conditional release of offenders. The CCRA and its regulations guides the board's policies, operations, training and parole decision making and provides the legislative framework for the corrections and conditional release system in Canada. Bill C-38 proposes to eliminate the requirement for in-person hearings for certain types of reviews. This change will save the board $1.6 million a year. Specifically, clause 527 of Bill C-38 seeks to modify section 140(1)(d) of the CCRA to remove the requirement for a panel hearing following a suspension, termination, revocation of parole and statutory release. Instead these decisions will be conducted by board members in office by way of a paper review.
Offenders will continue to be provided with all the information being considered by the board at least 15 days in advance of the review. They may make representation in writing to the board's consideration. It is important to note that this change is specific to post-release decisions.
The board will continue to conduct hearings for pre-release decisions involving day and full parole. Moreover, the board will retain the right to conduct an in-person hearing where it deems it is warranted. Protection of society is of paramount concern to the Parole Board of Canada. Public safety will be protected and the rules of fundamental justice will continue to be respected. Thank you for your time and I am able to take questions, should you have any.
The Chair: There are not very many clauses here. Could you explain which clauses are achieving the purpose that you have outlined for us?
Ms. Brisebois: I will start with clause 527, the primary clause being changed under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
The Chair: That is at page 341 of the act.
Ms. Brisebois: That is right. Clause 527 involves subsection 140(1)(d), and it serves to remove the requirement for hearings for reviews following a suspension, termination or revocation of parole. That includes day and full parole and statutory release. That is the primary amendment within the CCRA, but there are also consequential amendments.
If you look at 526, it serves to amend 124(4) of the CCRA where it refers to a hearing. It basically replaces the term "hearing " with "review. " Clause 528 is a transitional provision, so the transitional provision will mean that if the amendments are approved it would only apply in respect of the review of cases for offenders who have begun on or after the amendments have taken place. It is a transitional provision.
This would mean that offenders who are currently in the process of being reviewed under these types of decisions would continue to have a hearing.
The Chair: What if they are in the system but not up for review at this particular time? Then the new rules would apply?
Ms. Brisebois: That is it, yes. Existing offenders who have not been referred for these types of reviews would be subject to the amended legislation. However, offenders who are currently suspended or being reviewed for these categories of cases, they would still continue to have a hearing. It would be a transitional provision just until all of those cases that are currently in progress are dealt with.
There are also coordinating amendments. Clause 529 deals with the Safe Streets and Communities Act. It similarly changes the term "hearing " to "review, " just for consistency with the main change of the legislation.
Clause 530 refers to sections 526 to 528 and the fact that they will come into force on a date fixed by order-in- council.
The Chair: This is 529. This is the top of the page of 342. See that subsection 5? That seemed a little peculiar to me when I read that. Could you comment on that?
The Board shall, on the referral to it of the case of an offender who is serving a sentence of two years or more, review the case and — within the period prescribed by the regulations . . .
It goes on to say that either side can prevent that hearing from taking place. It is hardly a mandatory thing of having a review hearing if either side can put it off.
Ms. Brisebois: With this section of the legislation, the amendment is really to replace the term "hearing " with "review. " When we use the term "review, " it can include both hearings and administrative or in-office decisions. That was the main aspect of the change within this legislation.
The Chair: It was not this scheme of saying you will do it within 60 days but of course either side can put it off to more than 60 days?
Ms. Brisebois: There are certain time frames within the legislation that are mandated for the board's review of suspension or these types of cases, so those legislative time frames would continue to be in effect. There is nothing with respect to the timing of the review that would change, or the manner in which the review —
The Chair: If they are not changing it, then that is fine. Thank you.
Senator Ringuette: Ms. Brisebois, you are here to represent, from my perspective, your department in regard to the following questions that I foresee you will not have the answers to at hand, but please provide them as soon as possible to the clerk of our committee.
How many employees in your department got a notice letter of layoff by province and by classification? How many of these letters went to EX and how many to DMs? How many staffers in your department are not under the Public Service Employment Act and under what classification? What is the cost in your program for program management, i.e., what is the total for salaries, expenses, bonuses, et cetera, for the management level of your department and programs? Please also provide that as a percentage of the total.
You will get the transcript if you want, so you will have all that in writing.
Precisely to the clause at hand, what are the operational savings of these measures?
Ms. Brisebois: It is $1.6 million a year. Again, when we hold hearings, they are held in the institutions or facilities where the offender is incarcerated. For the board we have five regions, six regional offices, so it requires board members to travel to the location of the offender. It is quite costly. This will enable the board to hold in-office reviews.
Under the legislation, where the board deems it warranted, board members can have a hearing for these types of cases. It removes the legislative requirement, so it provides the board the flexibility to hold a hearing for cases that —
Senator Ringuette: Could you specify what you mean by in-office reviews?
Ms. Brisebois: We conduct in-office reviews now. In fact, for these types of cases, when we looked at the general trends, approximately half of these cases, half of these offenders, waive their hearing. They have the opportunity to waive their hearing. The board is required to conduct the review, but the offender can waive their right to a hearing.
We found that in half of these cases the offenders were waiving their right to a hearing. The board does conduct administrative, in-office decisions. In these instances, if the offender has waived his or her hearing, the board would continue with the file review.
We have information provided by the Correctional Service of Canada. In these cases what will happen is an offender will be suspended and placed temporarily in custody under the authority of the Correctional Service of Canada. A parole officer will interview them and collect additional information following the suspension, termination or revocation. That information is shared with the board, in addition to a number of other types of information that we already have on file, which would then be used by board members to make a decision.
Senator Ringuette: For clarification, when you say "in-office review, " are the board members gathered together for the review in an office situation? Do they look together at all the information that has been gathered for them? Do they do that individually in different communities and then have a teleconference?
Ms. Brisebois: Typically, when we speak about office decisions, we speak about decisions in the regional offices.
Senator Ringuette: Do the board members gather at the regional office?
Ms. Brisebois: Yes. Board members are assigned cases, similarly if it is scheduled for a hearing. They would receive the file information, review it and make the determination in the office.
Senator Ringuette: I now understand your concept of "in-office review. "
Ms. Brisebois: It is difficult to explain sometimes.
Senator Runciman: I was told that the panels that make parole decisions currently consist of two members.
Ms. Brisebois: For federal cases there are two board members and in some provincial cases, we have one board member. In some instances by policy we have two.
Senator Runciman: Is it part of the budget? Is there some kind of intention to reduce the panels from two members to one member?
Ms. Brisebois: It is not part of these legislative amendments to reduce quorum, but there are regulatory amendments under way that look at the quorum of board members.
Senator Runciman: I guess the concern was that with a lot of former police officers serving on the board and the whole issue of perceived bias on the part of the offenders, it may create problems going forward in terms of appeals to decisions if you do not have the two-member boards going forward.
That was conveyed to me. Obviously, corrections folks do not share that concern. Is that still under study?
Ms. Brisebois: Those particular amendments to quorum are not part of the legislative amendments we are looking at today, but they are under study, yes.
Senator Runciman: You talked about doing a review versus a hearing and decision to suspend or cancel parole. What does that process involve? How does it compare to a Parole Board of Canada hearing? We talked about an in- office review but, aside from that, is the process undertaken comparable or are there significant differences?
Ms. Brisebois: I will explain it a little bit. It is related to offenders. Currently when an offender is in the community, he is supervised by parole officers employed by Correctional Service of Canada. The board has the authority to make decisions with respect to conditional release and statutory release. CSC performs the supervision role. In instances where an offender may not be complying with conditions or their risk has changed, Correctional Service of Canada can issue a warrant to suspend an offender. They have 30 days to determine whether they will refer that case to the board or whether they will cancel the suspension locally because they have gathered additional information and feel that the offender can be re-released into the community. When that offender is referred to the board, the board has 90 days to make a decision with respect to that case. In these instances of suspensions of parole or statutory release, under the existing law the board would schedule a hearing once it has been referred by Correctional Service of Canada, and CSC would interview the offender again, collect information and provide that information to the board. A hearing would take place unless the offender waived their right to a hearing. If the offender waived that right, the board would conduct an in-office review.
With these proposed changes, the difference would be that the board would not be obligated to hold a hearing, although under the legislation we could still conduct a hearing if we felt it was warranted. For the offender, if we proceed with an in-office review, they would not have the opportunity to see board members or meet with them one- on-one. That is the difference.
Senator Runciman: If they waive the right to a hearing, why would you conduct a review?
Ms. Brisebois: Their status, whether parole or statutory release, would be suspended, so it has to be reviewed and to determine the outcome. The board would have to determine if they would cancel the suspension or termination notification. In some instances, they would terminate the parole or revoke the statutory release. It is a decision outcome as a result of the referral.
Senator Runciman: For breach of conditions of parole, the only recourse, as I understand it, is to deal with it in the manner that you are suggesting with the amendments to the act. Is breach of parole not a criminal offence?
Ms. Brisebois: No, breach of parole is not. A breach means breach of conditions. There are standard conditions under the regulations that all offenders are expected to comply with under parole and statutory releases. There are also special conditions that the Parole Board of Canada can impose as a part of that release that are specific to the risk factors associated with that offender. If an offender breaches a condition, either a standard condition or a special condition, it is not a Criminal Code offence. It is dealt with within the system in terms of that particular release.
Senator Runciman: Should it be a criminal offence?
Ms. Brisebois: Where it is considered a Criminal Code offence is in cases that are long-term supervision orders. These are also supervised by the Correction Services of Canada and come under the decision-making in terms of the laying of information recommendation from the Parole Board of Canada. If an offender who is under a long-term supervision order breaches a condition of his long-term supervision order, it is a Criminal Code offence — it is a breach of LTSO conditions. In those instances, it is a Criminal Code offence. Again, that category of offenders is very distinct from persons serving custodial sentences.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you for your explanations this evening. I have one brief question. What is your estimate of how many hearings you will be able to dispense with annually?
Ms. Brisebois: We estimate approximately 1,500 hearings.
Senator Callbeck: What is the total?
Ms. Brisebois: A little over 3,000.
Senator Callbeck: You are going to be able to dispense with half of them.
Ms. Brisebois: I say half because half have already waived their hearing.
Senator Marshall: You were talking about the hearings and about the paper reviews. You said that the offender could decide they do not want a hearing, but then you said something to the effect that the board could conduct a hearing if they felt it was warranted. Under what circumstances would it be warranted?
Ms. Brisebois: Under the current scheme of the legislation, the offender determines whether the hearing will be waived. The offender can waive that hearing. If he does not waive that hearing, the board has to conduct a hearing. In situations where the board is not required to conduct a hearing, it can still conduct one. For these classes of cases, the board could still hold a hearing, but it would not be obligated if the legislative amendments are approved.
Senator Marshall: Ordinarily, what kind of conditions would have to be met in order for a hearing to proceed? Would it be a more complicated case?
Ms. Brisebois: Under the current situation, it would be at the offender's determination. If the legislative amendments take place, once the board members have reviewed the case and the information, it would be at their determination in terms of the complexity of the case, the risk factors and whether they wanted certain clarifications.
Senator Marshall: How is the $1.6 million in savings that you were speaking about broken down? Is that all travel money or is part of it salaries? What is the breakdown?
Ms. Brisebois: It is predominately travel, but I can get the breakdown in terms of the costs.
Senator Marshall: I would like to see that. You are saying the majority of it would be travel, which would be saved because if you are not doing the hearings, you would not go to the location?
Ms. Brisebois: That is right. There are also efficiencies for travel time in terms of board members and staff travelling to the hearings, in terms of efficiencies of having the time that staff and board members are travelling to the institutions or the various locations. I can definitely provide that.
Senator Marshall: I would like to see that.
Did you mention earlier it is contemplated that there was going to be change to the structure of the boards or the boards were going to be eliminated?
Ms. Brisebois: I was referring to quorum because the question was whether or not the board was considering an adjustment in quorum. By "quorum, " I mean the number of board members required for particular classes of cases. At this point in time, we have some classes of provincial cases where we have one board member who makes the decision. In some classes of federal cases, we have two board members. There is a consideration in terms of the quorum. That is a separate exercise.
Senator Marshall: Those savings are not included in the $1.6 million. Those will be additional savings?
Ms. Brisebois: That is right. It is not part of the submission.
Senator Peterson: Other than saving the $1.6 million and removing the right to a hearing, is it business at usual?
Ms. Brisebois: With respect to this legislative amendment, yes.
Senator Peterson: I trust it is Charter-proof?
Ms. Brisebois: Again, with all the legislative amendments, Justice officials are consulted and we follow their direction with respect to whether or not this meets the rigour and requirements.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Do you have additional expenses or did you reduce expenses when the Conditional Release Act was changed, when it went from one-sixth to one-third of the sentence? Did that reduce the number of people? Were there savings because of that?
My second question is what will happen with provincial cases regarding federal conditional release? How do you deal with provincial cases? I thought that all provincial cases of less than two years went before the provincial board. What cases do you hear federally that fall under a provincial offence?
[English]
Ms. Brisebois: I will clarify. In the first question, were you referencing the abolition of APR or the Accelerated Parole Review, the amendments to the eligibility time frames?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Yes.
Ms. Brisebois: That was under a former bill and there were not savings associated with that amendment to legislation.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Now will there be more expenses in terms of review? People are not obliged to go before the parole board. If they want to stay in jail, they can stay in jail, can they not?
Ms. Brisebois: I guess they do not have to see parole board members because they can waive their hearing, but there are certain cases where the board members or the board will take a decision. With respect to parole, yes, they could waive their parole and the parole hearings if they wanted to, but with respect to statutory release, if the offender is in the community and he is suspended by correctional officials or, for instance, for long-term supervision orders, the board will still conduct reviews with respect to these cases. It could be that in some instances the offender will waive their hearing but the board will still make decisions, depending on the type of decision.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: How about provincial cases?
Ms. Brisebois: I should have been clear that these are dealing with federal cases. In provincial cases, for post- suspension cases we are required to conduct a hearing, but for day and full parole applications, provincial cases, we are not required to conduct a hearing under the legislation. Those are cases that would involve an administrative or in- office review unless, again, the board determines they would prefer to have a hearing.
The only exception to that is where the provincial offender's offence caused death. In those instances, any day or full parole application by way of our policy would require a hearing.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I want a definition of what you call a provincial case.
Ms. Brisebois: I am sorry. Under the legislation, for provinces that do not have their own parole board, the Parole Board of Canada makes decisions with respect to day and full parole.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Do you recover the costs? If you are doing the cases for the provinces, do they pay what it is worth in terms of time and expertise that you supply to a province?
Ms. Brisebois: It comes under our existing mandate so it is basically assumed under our existing budget.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: If Quebec is doing its own parole board and conducting its own hearings and paying for them, why would the federal government conduct them for other provinces?
Ms. Brisebois: It is because the provinces have chosen not to establish their own parole boards.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: If you were in the business of cost recovery, why not charge the provinces for that?
The Chair: This is beyond Ms. Brisebois' mandate.
Ms. Brisebois: Again, maybe that is beyond my mandate. It is not really a cost recovery exercise.
The Chair: Thank you very much. It is not fair to push you on something that is a policy decision.
I hate to take you to the same section, but I still have questions. Page 342, subsection 5, that I referred you to earlier, your answer was that that is changing from "hearing " to "review " and that is the reason that clause is in there. When you look at that subsection, it looks as if there was a problem with the English language because it is both on the French side and English side. Can you tell us why that is in there?
Ms. Brisebois: Which clause are you referring to?
The Chair: 135(5). It is the top subparagraph of page 342.
Ms. Brisebois: Paragraph 2 of clause 529, is that the one you are referring to?
The Chair: No, I think it is 135(5).
Ms. Brisebois: Yes, I have it here. Yes, you are correct.
Senator Runciman: It says the French version does not require any change.
Ms. Brisebois: That is right.
The Chair: The answer I got earlier on this was that this was here because the word "review " replaced "hearing. " Should I jump to the conclusion that it is not necessary to make that change in French? I think not.
Ms. Brisebois: I would have to get back to you with respect to the translation. In some instances there are some differences between the English sections of the legislation and the French.
The Chair: I do not have the old one here. The French changed, too, if that is the reason for the section. I am giving Ms. Brisebois the opportunity to tell me that that is not the reason that clause is there; it is for some other change. I am asking what that other change is. Do you want to stay with your same testimony?
Ms. Brisebois: I want to make sure. There are consequential amendments, so I want to make sure it is clear.
The Chair: I think Senator Runciman is quite right that normally when the same language appears on both sides, it is just to correct in that language some misspelling or typographical error.
Ms. Brisebois: The passage of subsection 135(5) of the English version of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act has been replaced. It is specific to the English.
The Chair: Perhaps you could get back to us on that. It would be helpful for us to understand.
Ms. Brisebois: Could I provide that in writing?
The Chair: Yes, to our clerk, who will circulate it to everyone so we can understand what is happening there.
Ms. Brisebois: Sure.
The Chair: Senator Ringuette had a supplementary.
Senator Ringuette: If I understand you correctly when you answered Senator Runciman, the federal parole board always has two members. Is that right?
Ms. Brisebois: In some instances we have a quorum or the voting of one board member that would take the decision. For provincial cases —
Senator Ringuette: No, I understand the provincial cases issue, but the standard is two.
Ms. Brisebois: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: What has the feedback been with regard to two members?
Ms. Brisebois: In terms of this —
Senator Ringuette: I can understand Senator Runciman, where, if we have a one-person parole board, then there can be a conflict situation. It would eliminate conflict situations if you at least had two members, which is the case now.
Ms. Brisebois: Yes. These legislative amendments will not change that. What Senator Runciman was mentioning was a separate consideration that is currently being considered.
The Chair: It is not here yet.
Ms. Brisebois: No.
The Chair: We are getting ready for the next piece of legislation coming along. Thank you, Ms. Brisebois. We appreciate you clarifying that. We look forward to hearing from you with respect to subsection 5.
Ms. Brisebois: I apologize for that.
The Chair: That is fine. If you only have one, you are doing very well.
Honourable senators, we will now go on to Division 38, Coasting Trade Act. This is Transport Canada, and we should have Louise Laflamme and Janet Kavanagh to help us out with coasting trade.
Janet Kavanagh, Director, Port Policy, Transport Canada: I am here tonight as the acting director of marine policy at Transport Canada. I am here with my colleague Louise Laflamme. She is the senior policy adviser and subject matter expert on coasting trade. Ms. Laflamme will be dealing with Division 38, or the coasting trade amendment, and I also believe we will be dealing with Division 45. We are one of those departments that have two or more items.
The Chair: Yes, it is very short.
Ms. Kavanagh: I will speak to that one myself.
The Chair: These are short amendments, so that probably means we will talk forever on them.
Ms. Kavanagh: I guess we will see.
Louise Laflamme, Chief, Marine Policy and Regulatory Affairs, Transport Canada: I am here to talk about Division 38, clause 531. For some context, the Coasting Trade Act reserves Canada's coasting trade to Canadian vessels. Coasting trade includes the transportation of goods and passengers between points in Canada and any marine activity of a commercial nature. When above the Continental Shelf, these activities must be in relation to the exploration and exploitation of the minerals and non-living natural resources of the Continental Shelf.
The offshore petroleum industry is international in character. Not only are offshore oil and gas companies participating in the research for global resources, but the exploration in oilfield service companies supporting offshore development have likewise become international in scope.
Despite an overall increase in seismic programs in other international jurisdictions, Eastern Canada is experiencing an ongoing decline. Current levels of seismic programs above the Continental Shelf are not sufficient to sustain the offshore petroleum industry in the medium to long term.
The Chair: What you are reading from is in our briefing note. You can assume we have all read that. Please give a précis of that and then talk about the section itself.
Ms. Laflamme: I will skip to the main policy rationale.
The Chair: That would be good.
Ms. Laflamme: One of the main objectives of the amendment would be to harmonize our regime with most other petroleum producing jurisdictions globally other than Nigeria, which has the same restrictions on seismic activities. The amendment will also support economic growth in Atlantic Canada and Arctic regions and create employment opportunities in the marine transport inland ports and in other support industries servicing the oil and gas industry.
If we go directly to the clause itself, 531, the amendment to the Coasting Trade Act found in clause 531 would add a new exemption under subsection 3(2) of the Coasting Trade Act for seismic activities delivered by foreign and non-duty paid vessels that are above the Continental Shelf and in relation to the exploration for its minerals and natural resources.
The Chair: Is this only the Continental Shelf off the East Coast of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia?
Ms. Laflamme: The Continental Shelf is off all three coasts, if I can call it that.
The Chair: It is generic, then?
Ms. Laflamme: It is generic, however, in B.C. there is both a provincial and a federal moratorium on offshore development so there is nothing going on there. The two main areas affected are Atlantic Canada and Arctic Canada.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: That may be a very good idea, but what is the financial impact of that change in the budget? You will be issuing more permits. Where will you reduce costs?
Ms. Laflamme: We are not issuing more permits. We allow this type of activity without a permit in Canada when it is on Canada's continental plate. There is no impact in terms of budget cuts. However, as I mentioned, the goal was more to increase jobs in sensitive regions, like the Atlantic and the Arctic, as well as revenue for the provinces that manage oil development.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: How will you increase employment since you are going to allow foreign vessels to come? There may be more jobs for the United States, for Europe and for others, but certainly not for Canada because the measure will extend to foreign vessels the same rights that Canadian vessels have.
Ms. Laflamme: The legislative amendment will cover only vessels that provide seismic services. All other oil development activities on the continental plate will continue to be protected by the Coasting Trade Act. These activities will increase significantly in the coming years further to an increased seismological studies program. These programs will create many jobs on Canadian vessels that will provide services to oil development.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: So many jobs. So how many seismic vessels are we talking about? These are vessels equipped with extremely specialized instruments and staff. Is it the Canadian private sector that operates our Canadian vessels or, as is often the case, are our Canadian vessels registered abroad?
Ms. Laflamme: Currently, on the continental plate, no Canadian vessel is able to offer the services that oil producers are seeking in terms of seismic research. On that front, no jobs will be lost. Seismic vessels will be from abroad, that is true.
However, as I mentioned, the increase in jobs will take place on board Canadian ships that will be providing transportation support or technical assistance to the seismic ships, and during the course of the developmental work that will follow the program launch.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Will this program allow us to shorten the 15-year period required before the actual oil drilling can begin? You said that you have to wait 15 years between when you do the assessment and obtain the results and when you get activities rolling. Will this measure enable you to shorten this 15-year time period?
Ms. Laflamme: No, but considering that production will continue beyond 2019 in some regions, we will have to start allowing these activities to take place in order to increase future production, so that we can reduce production on existing sites today.
The Chair: Ms. Laflamme, you used the word "cabotage. "
Ms. Laflamme: Yes.
The Chair: Could you explain what cabotage means? Would that be seismic activity?
Ms. Laflamme: No, cabotage is generally defined as the transportation of goods or persons between two points within a country. In Canada, for example, this would be the transport of a container on a Canadian ship between Montreal and Halifax.
The Chair: On a Canadian ship?
Ms. Laflamme: On a ship, boat, train, yes.
[English]
Senator Marshall: You were saying that this amendment primarily affects the Atlantic provinces. Would that have been run by the governments of the various Atlantic provinces?
Ms. Laflamme: Both Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia have requested this type of amendment. Therefore, yes, they do know of this.
Senator Marshall: It does not require their approval; it is completely federal jurisdiction, is it?
Ms. Laflamme: Yes.
Senator Marshall: But they are supportive of it?
Ms. Laflamme: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: I have a small confirmation. Did I hear you say that no Canadian vessel can currently do the seismic programs required?
Ms. Laflamme: Aboard the Continental Shelf in the North Atlantic and Beaufort Sea, that is true. That being said, there are Canadian-registered vessels that provide seismic services in Canada. However, most of them operate within the 12-mile limit, which does not reach the Continental Shelf.
Senator Ringuette: Is it because of a lack of sturdiness or a lack of equipment that they cannot perform the task?
Ms. Laflamme: It is the harsh conditions in those regions. They require very specialized equipment, very strong vessels — ice-class vessels — and these are very expensive. Since the fleet is global in nature, they go anywhere there is a job, so it has evolved to what we have today where these very specialized vessels that can operate in very harsh conditions are flagged outside of Canada.
Senator Ringuette: From my personal perspective, I would much rather see a federal program to incentivize Canadian owners to upgrade their operation and their equipment. I am looking at the future in all the Arctic area, and we are looking at a lot of potential for many years. Before moving to enhance the opportunity for foreign ships to perform these tasks, I would certainly have liked to see some kind of incentive program for Canadian ships to be able to do the kind of kind of operation that would be needed in the great Canadian north. That is my personal perspective.
Do not answer that.
The Chair: To clarify, when you were defining "cabotage " for me, I understood you to say that the ship had to be Canadian. However, now you are saying most of these ships are not Canadian. Will we have to change the title of the act in French?
Ms. Laflamme: The Coasting Trade Act defines what "cabotage " is in Canada and provides for an administrative process to allow for the temporary importation of foreign vessels in Canada when Canadian vessels cannot provide the service.
Therefore, section 3(2) that is being changed here is a list of exemptions where vessels are not required to obtain a coasting trade licence to operate in Canada.
The Chair: Is the title in French still le cabotage?
Ms. Laflamme: It is still considered a cabotage activity.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Does Transport Canada have a boat affiliated with Laval University that conducts research in the Canadian Arctic?
Ms. Laflamme: Yes, there are four Canadian ships. However, they do not have the equipment required to obtain the scientific information that the large oil companies are looking for, either in the North Atlantic or in the Beaufort Sea.
Senator Maltais: Where do these ships outfitted with this ultra-functional equipment come from?
Ms. Laflamme: They generally come from Denmark and other northern European countries.
Senator Maltais: I would imagine that these ships are going to detect seismic problems in their zone, and not in ours?
[English]
The Chair: Ms. Kavanagh is ready regarding page 380, Division 45.
Ms. Kavanagh: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment deals with the Canada Marine Act, specifically with Canada port authorities. Canada port authorities are arm's-length, independent federal entities that manage federal ports and are governed by the Canada Marine Act. Under the act, they have the authority to borrow money. They do so on their own name and with their own credit; there are no government guarantees or backing with respect to that borrowing. They do so within a limit set by the Governor-in- Council and, from time to time, Canada port authorities seek an increase to that borrowing limit. To do so we must go for Governor-in-Council approval.
By practice and protocol, the Minister of Transport has always sought the concurrence of the Minister of Finance when making those recommendations in going to Governor-in-Council. That recognizes the Minister of Finance's responsibility with respect to the fiscal framework.
This amendment formalizes what we have been doing in practice and protocol by adding those words to subsection 8(5); basically, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance before seeking approval the Governor-in-Council to increase a port authority's borrowing limit.
The Chair: The port authority's ability to borrow is not impacted, other than having the recommendation of both ministers.
Ms. Kavanagh: No, it just changes the process by which that request is forwarded and dealt with by the Governor- in-Council. They do have a specific borrowing limit; for instance, Vancouver's is just over half a billion dollars. Some of the smaller port authorities are more like $2 million or $3 million, and that is based on the strength of their revenues and business situations. If they want to increase that number, they must come in and this is the process that is followed.
The Chair: Is it fair to say that the port authority is managing assets owned by the people of Canada?
Ms. Kavanagh: Yes, that would be very fair to say.
The Chair: So this law allows them to borrow against that asset of the people of Canada, under the supervision of the Ministers of Transport and Finance.
Ms. Kavanagh: That is not entirely the case in the sense that port authorities, for instance, cannot pledge federal land with respect to borrowing. That remains firmly in the hands of the federal government. Leases with terminal operators generally support borrowings. Revenue streams are the collateral used for that, as opposed to specific assets.
They have been given the management of those, not the ownership of them.
The Chair: That is helpful.
Senator Callbeck: Will that slow down the approval process much?
Ms. Kavanagh: We hope it will speed it up, actually. As I said, by practice and protocol, the Minister of Transport has written a letter to his colleague and, because it is not required by the act, it is one of many letters that ministers have to deal with. By putting it in the act, we are hoping that that will apply a certain rigour and depth to that recommendation that is missing now.
Senator Peterson: Who backstops these loans that the ports do?
Ms. Kavanagh: The ports do, with their revenue stream. The assessment base takes into account the long-term leases, I guess is what it is. They generally have long-term leases, and the revenues from those leases are used to support the debt they take on.
Senator Peterson: Banks accept that, do they?
Ms. Kavanagh: Yes, they do.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: What is the impact on our budget?
Ms. Kavanagh: The impact is related to jobs and growth. The faster or more timely decisions that we make with respect to these borrowing limits, these port authorities take that borrowing and partner with private sector investors. That really is the main tool available to them to finance port infrastructure projects.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: You cannot quantify that?
Ms. Kavanagh: Not specifically.
The Chair: Thank you very much for being here. We appreciate it. We have two divisions done. We should do this more often.
Colleagues, we are now back to Division 39, page 343, but you will be pleased to know we also, at the request of our witnesses, will do two different divisions here, 39 and 52.
Mr. Giles will be talking to us about the Status of the Artist Act.
Anthony Giles, Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information Directorate, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: Yes, I am here for Division 39. Afterwards, Division 52 is a completely different story.
The Chair: We will deal with one at a time then.
Mr. Giles: Division 39 is there to dismantle the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal and assign its powers, duties and functions to the Canada Industrial Relations Board.
The regime of labour relations that is in the act will remain. The rights of artists' associations and producers' associations will remain untouched. The fundamental change is that the CIRB will administer that act as opposed to the existing tribunal.
The core reason for disbanding CAPPRT, as it is known, and transferring its functions to the CIRB is that CAPPRT's caseload has fallen dramatically in the last five or six years, down to just one or two cases a year, and therefore it is not economic or efficient to maintain a separate institution for such a small caseload. The CIRB is a well- run institution that has parallel functions for labour relations and is well positioned to take over those functions.
If you wish, I could go through each provision of the amendments, but it would take us pretty close to midnight, so let me explain that there are four types of amendments being made in Division 39. The first and most common that you will see throughout the legislative text is simply replacing a reference of CAPPRT to CIRB and making technical adjustments that are related to that. Second, there are some transitional arrangements.
The Chair: What sections are you referring to?
Mr. Giles: I am referring to them together. I am just saying there are, scattered throughout all the sections, four essential types of changes, one being just replacing CAPPRT with CIRB.
The Chair: I understood that, but you cannot tell us which sections they are?
Mr. Giles: I could go through them and point out which ones they are one by one, if you wish.
The Chair: It only takes you a second to say that clause 532 does this and clause 533 does that.
Mr. Giles: Okay.
The Chair: What we do not want is clauses that do things you are not talking about. When we finish having you talk to us, we want to be satisfied that we know what is in this section. In the past your colleagues unintentionally have come and just talked in general terms and we have missed some very fundamental sections that caused much embarrassment to us. We do not want you or us to be embarrassed. It will not take until midnight, I can assure you.
Mr. Giles: I understand.
Subclauses 532(1), (2) and (3), which relate to definitions, repeal the definition of "tribunal, " which is no longer needed. All references to "tribunal " are replaced with references to the "board, " and the definition of "board " is added to section 5 of the act.
Clause 533 modifies subsection 9(3)(b) by replacing references to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, with "board " now as a defined term.
Clause 534 is a repeal of sections that established CAPPRT in the first place. Sections 10 to 15 of that clause take care of the repeal.
Clause 535, which relates to regulations, modifies section 16, that is to say CAPPRT's existing authority to make regulations is transferred to CIRB. This regulation-making authority under the Status of the Artist Act will only apply to the CIRB's functions under that act; it does not apply to its other regulatory functions. Additionally, all references to "tribunal " are replaced with references to "board. "
Clause 536 under powers, again, section 17 is modified. CAPPRT's existing powers under the act with respect to proceedings before it are transferred to CIRB, and all references to "tribunal " are replaced with references to the "board. "
Clause 537 is simply, again, changing the reference from "tribunal " to "board. "
Clause 538 has to do with proceedings. Sections 19 to 21 modify by making all references to "tribunal " now references to "board. " In addition, some additional terms have been added to proposed subsection 21(2) in the French version in order to be consistent with terminology used in Quebec law.
Clause 539 again replaces references to "tribunal " with references to the "board. " Clause 540 does the same thing. Clause 541 again does the same thing, replaces references to "tribunal " with "board, " as do subclauses 542(1) to (4) and subclauses 543(1) to (3), as well as clause 544 and subclauses 545(1) and (2). Clause 546 does the same thing, just makes a change in the reference from "tribunal " to "board. "
Clause 547 makes a linguistic change in the French version by adding the terms "révision " and "évocation, " again to be consistent with terminology used in modern Quebec administrative law.
Clause 548, proposed subsection 39(1), again replaces "tribunal " with "board. " In proposed subsection 40(1), the term "mandatory " has been added in order to be consistent again with the terminology used in modern Quebec administrative law.
Clause 550 simply changes "tribunal " to "board, " as do subclauses 551(1) and (2), and 552, proposed section 48.
Clause 553 modifies section 49 in the same way. Clause 554 does the same thing to paragraph 50(f). Clauses 555, 556, 558, 560 and 561 all do the same thing, change the reference from "tribunal " to "board. "
Clause 562 repeals section 61 of the act, as a separate report by CAPPRT would no longer be required. The CIRB already makes an annual report.
Clause 563 modifies section 64 and 65 of the Status of the Artists Act to replace "tribunal " with "board. " Section 66 refers to the requirement for statutory review of the status of the Status of the Artists Act. That was completed in 2002 and, therefore, is no longer necessary. Clause 563 also repeals section 67, which contains a transitional provision that addressed the status of agreements when the Status of the Artists Act was first enacted and, therefore, is no longer is required.
Clause 564 sets out transitional provisions and definitions of "board " and "tribunal. "
Transitional provisions in subclauses 565(1) and (2) relate to what will occur with the current members of the board when the board is dismantled. Briefly, their appointments will come to an end on that date.
Clause 566 is on transitional provisions. It ensures that any case being heard by the tribunal at the time that it is dismantled will automatically shift to the CIRB and will be completed by the CIRB; so nothing will fall through the cracks.
Clause 567 is a transitional provision that we give the CIRB authority to review previous decisions rendered by CAPPRT and uphold or rescind those decisions as required.
Clause 568 is a transitional provision. Any contract, lease, licence or other document entered into by CAPPRT will become the responsibility of the CIRB.
Clause 569 is a transitional provision regarding the commencement of legal proceedings. Again, that is to transfer responsibility from CAPPRT to the CIRB.
Continuation of legal proceedings is dealt with in clause 570, which transfers responsibility to the CIRB.
Clauses 571 to 576 are all consequential amendments to replace references to CAPPRT in other pieces of legislation, such as the Access to Information Act, with references to the CIRB.
Clause 577 is the coming into force provision, which is to be fixed by order of the Governor-in-Council.
You are right, it did not take until midnight.
The Chair: You have a little sip of water and I will ask: Is the word that we are adopting "board " in English rather than "tribunal? "
Mr. Giles: The existing body is called the tribunal.
The Chair: This is all being changed. We can see the word throughout in all the clauses you have reviewed. We see "board " underlined, so that is the new word.
Mr. Giles: It is not so much the word that is being changed as the reference to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, which is defined in one of those early clauses as "the board. "
The Chair: In French, are we changing the name to "le conseil "?
Mr. Giles: In French, the Canada Industrial Relations Board is the Conseil des relations industrielles.
The Chair: We see that in some of the French and in some other places we see only the English repeated on the French side with the word "board " traded for "tribunal. " Presumably, you are not changing the French terminology. There are many places throughout these clauses you have just gone over where you see English on both sides, and you are putting "board " as the new word. Can you tell us why you would not show the French version with the word "conseil? "
Mr. Giles: I am looking for an example.
The Chair: At page 343, my colleague tells. I found it in quite a few places.
Mr. Giles: For that level of detail, I would have to provide a written response.
The Chair: While doing that, look at page 352, proposed section 40 at the bottom. The English version has "counsel or an agent or mandatary. " You have repeated that on the other side in English but not in the French.
Mr. Giles: That is a linguistic change to make the French and the English versions equivalent.
The Chair: It is only the English that is being changed in this instance?
Mr. Giles: In this particular instance, yes.
The Chair: We understood that, when we saw that you had the same language in both columns, it is the kind of thing that is happening.
Mr. Giles: Typically, yes.
The Chair: You have added "mandatary " to the English side. If you could sort that other one out, it would be helpful.
Senator Runciman: Did you mention whether the tribunal is currently structured as permanent employees?
Mr. Giles: A small group of permanent employees are the staff the tribunal. Three members of the tribunal who are GIC appointments are all part time.
Senator Runciman: You have to wonder what they have been doing over the years. I found one decision earlier this year, which was the first one since 2007 — only two active cases. I support what you are saying, but I guess you have to ask why it was not done before. What are the savings?
Mr. Giles: The savings will be $1.7 million a year.
Senator Runciman: My only comment was to wonder why this was not dealt with sooner.
The Chair: Better now than never.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Have the artists or producers concerned been consulted? Do they know about this? Did you get any feedback?
Mr. Giles: They know about it now because the board has issued this information. We have not seen any feedback to date. I would also add that Quebec had a very similar board, but it too abolished it and transferred its activities to the industrial resource board three or four years ago. There was no negative reaction to this move. This was accepted by everyone.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: That is information, not consultation, right?
Mr. Giles: Yes.
[English]
Senator Marshall: What was the impetus for the amendments? Was it primarily the savings? It was not representation from the artists.
Mr. Giles: No, it was primarily the savings.
Senator Marshall: Did the amendments originate with the Department of Human Resources? Who developed the amendments? Was it purely internal to the department?
Mr. Giles: Yes, it came under the Minister of Labour's proposals under the deficit reduction action plan.
Senator Callbeck: I read where it says "transferring the CAPPRT's function to CIRB is expected to result in improved service to artists and producers under the tribunal's jurisdiction by reducing delays in the hearing of cases. "
Mr. Giles: There have been some considerable delays because of the difficulty of the three members in achieving a sufficient quorum to hear French language cases. They have been delayed in some cases for many years. The CIRB will not have that problem because it has a large number of bilingual and francophone members.
Senator Callbeck: There are three members on this tribunal that will be cancelled.
Mr. Giles: Yes.
Senator Callbeck: How many are bilingual?
Mr. Giles: At this time, I am not sure. I would have to get back to you.
The Chair: That would be helpful information for us, thank you.
Senator Callbeck: You will save $1.7 million. Can you give me a breakdown of that $1.7 million?
Mr. Giles: I do not have the details, but I am happy to send them. I can tell you in general terms that over the last three or four years the CAPPRT appropriation has been around $2 million. It has elapsed about $1 million of that, so that is counted as savings because it is still in the planned spending estimates. Of the other $700,000 that will be saved, approximately half is in salary expenses and half is in operating and maintenance.
I will provide you with the detailed figures.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you.
Senator Ringuette: I was anticipating that my colleagues from Quebec would have said that, thankfully, you were following the example set by Quebec a few years ago, as you said earlier, on these measures.
You have three board members. How many employees would serve these board members?
Mr. Giles: Currently, there are seven.
Senator Ringuette: Seven employees? I am assuming that these employees have all received a letter of notice.
Mr. Giles: Actually, they have not at this point, for two reasons. First, in looking at the transfer, it has been decided that a small number, let us say, of those employees currently with the CAPPRT will be transferred to the CIRB to provide continuity, knowledge and so on.
Second, we decided it would be wise to give the CAPPRT and the CIRB a couple of months to look at how to make the transition in a seamless way. The employees have been notified of what is happening and have also been told that, by mid to late June, an HR plan will be put in place that will allow the official process to take place.
Senator Ringuette: How many grievances have not been completed? Do you have a backlog? You said that sometimes last year they heard two cases, and some cases have had delays because of a language issue. What is in the backlog, if there is one?
Mr. Giles: I understand that the CAPPRT just issued a decision several weeks ago. It may have one or two other cases outstanding. Again, I can provide that information. It would not be more than one or two.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Giles. We appreciate your being here.
Did you want to go on to another one?
Mr. Giles: Yes, please.
The Chair: We would be pleased to do that. That would be Division 52 at page 401, entitled Wage Earner Protection Program Act, and it comprises two sections. Could you tell us what you are attempting to achieve by this?
Mr. Giles: We are correcting a discrepancy between the English and French versions of the Wage Earner Protection Program Act that was made last year, I believe. In the English version of the act, the word "bankruptcy " was left off in the English, whereas in the French, the equivalent of the words "bankruptcy and receivership " were both in. The correction is to add "bankruptcy " to the English version.
The importance of that is that the WEPP, which provides payments to workers who, when their employers go bankrupt or into receivership, have unpaid wages, vacation time or unpaid severance, they can receive up to approximately $3,400 from the federal government to help them through that period.
This is really to correct an error in the English version.
Senator Ringuette: There was an error and we missed it.
The Chair: How long ago was that legislation passed?
Mr. Giles: I believe it was December 2011.
The Chair: That would be the reason for coming into force or trying to bring this back into force at the time this legislation first came into force.
Mr. Giles: To make it retroactive to when the error first occurred.
The Chair: For that reason.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Will there be financial impact?
Mr. Giles: None, this is simply a technical correction.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Runciman, this is where we see the same language because it is only being corrected in English.
Mr. Giles: In this case, that is the reason, yes.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I appreciate you for staying around.
Mr. Giles: Thank you for putting the two together.
The Chair: Now we will go back again. It is tougher going back. Are we doing any more of these together? We are at Division 40 at page 361. Official from Environment Canada are before us, Mr. Hanson and Mr. Lessard-Lachance.
Lawrence Hanson, Director General, Strategic Policy Directorate, Environment Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for allowing us to do the two sections together. It is appreciated.
Division 40 relates to the dissolution of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. The round table was created by statute in 1988 and was designed to increase public awareness and understanding of sustainable development issues and to provide advice to the Government of Canada on those issues. The round table reports to Parliament through the Minister of the Environment.
The decision to eliminate the round table was taken as part of the attempts to find savings under the Deficit Reduction Action Plan, and was communicated as such in Budget 2012. The dissolution of the round table will result in savings of $5.1 million on an annual basis, beginning in the 2013-14 fiscal year.
In terms of the actual clauses of the bill, clause 578 deals with basically the idea of allowing the round table to wind down its affairs and to dispose of assets. Those assets will be relatively limited; they will take the form of office equipment and things like that. It will be disposing of those. It also provides the capacity for the minister to provide some direction to the operation of the round table in this final period while during the course of it winding down its affairs. That is obviously at the discretion of the minister; he need not exercise it if he does not wish to do so.
Clauses 579 through 584 relate to a number of issues in the transition period. It notes the fact that, at the time of dissolution of the round table when the act comes into force, the members of the round table will cease to hold their appointments and would not have resource to seek compensation as a result of that. It also relates further to these ideas of actual asset disposal and so forth.
Then what would happen as part of these transitional periods, any time there is an asset related to the round table, that would revert to the Crown in if event of dissolution. Therefore, if the round table had any assets or liabilities at the time of its dissolution, those would refer to the Crown. A party to any court proceedings would then come to the Crown, as well.
Clauses 586 through 592 are similar to what my colleague in the previous presentation did: It is a series of consequential amendments that would remove references to the round table, and a series of other statutes such as the Access to Information Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act and a series of others where they are mentioned.
Clause 593 would repeal the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act, and clause 594 would be the actual coming into force of these provisions that would be set at a time by order-in-council.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I think you moved us along quite nicely on this.
This afternoon, in another section of the act, we dealt with the dissolution, the termination of another board, Rights and Democracy, I think it was called. There was provision that none of the members of the board whose term had not expired could claim any compensation. However, an exception was made for the president in that particular case.
In this instance, can you confirm there is no exception made for anyone who holds any office, including the president; that everyone, by statute, will be precluded from any compensation or ability to sue the Crown for compensation for losing his or her appointment?
Mr. Hanson: That is correct. Related to that is the fact that the term of the existing president of the round table is scheduled to come to an end in August of this year, at any rate.
The Chair: Are you aware whether there was any discussion that if his term would not be coming to an end, the president would be given special dispensation from this?
Mr. Hanson: I am not certain, Mr. Chair. I would not feel comfortable speculating on that. I am not aware of that being examined as a possible alternative, nor am I certain that the fact that his term was ending in August was the reason for this not being there. I mainly said it just as a corollary sort of fact.
The Chair: The section on no compensation, colleagues, is at page 362, transitional provisions, 580(2).
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I have a few quick questions. As we speak, how many members sit on the round table? Who appointed them? Will everyone's mandate be expiring at the same time? What are the qualifications of these people? Did they sit on a full-time or part-time basis? What compensation was given to each of the round table members? How many staff members provided support to the round table? How much money will be saved by abolishing the round table?
[English]
Mr. Hanson: The round table has a president and CEO, who is the only full-time round table member. He is a GC-7, so I believe that puts his salary somewhere in the range of $167,000 to $197,000. Over and above that, there is the chair and the other round table members, of which there will be a total of 16, although currently there are five vacancies. Both the chair of the round table and the other members of the round table are not full-time employees. They are paid a per diem for days on which they are doing round table business, and they are granted reasonable travel expenses.
The appointments are designed to be staggered so that there would not be an immediate turnover of all members changing at the same time. The dates on which they are appointed in their current service would come to an end, which is three years, are available at the order-in-council appointments page. I took the liberty of bringing copies of that document in English and French, and I am happy to leave that with the clerk at the end of my testimony this evening.
With regard to staff, including the president, I believe there are 31 full-time staff. I confess that I do not know the exact levels related to them in terms of their classifications within the public service.
To note your final question, the savings to be realized are $5.1 million on an annual basis, starting next year.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: You forgot one thing, the qualification of the members. Which areas were they representing and who appointed them? What is the mechanism to appoint the members of the board?
Mr. Hanson: My apologies. The members of the board come from various backgrounds. They come from academia, from civil society, and some are former elected representatives. There is a fairly wide variety of individuals. They are appointed as an order-in-council appointment by cabinet.
Senator Buth: My question was the same as Senator Hervieux-Payette's, so I am done.
Senator Peterson: Could you give us a couple of examples of some of the achievements of the national round table, what they did?
Mr. Hanson: Sure. I will confess that I am a little more familiar with some of their more recent work than their earlier work. In more recent years, they have looked at a wide variety of issues, issues related to, for example, water use in Canada, water efficiency issues. They have a series of issues related to climate change, mitigation approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as well as issues related to climate change adaptation in terms of the steps that would be required to help Canadians and industry adapt to climate change.
Just as a recent example, they have also produced a report on life cycle approaches to products in terms of approaches to determine the overall environmental impact of the development of a good or a service over the course of its life, including development and disposal.
This will tie into the second division I will be speaking to, Division 53. They are also required, by the terms of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, to issue an assessment of the annual climate change plan that the government is required to publish under the terms of the KPIA, the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act.
Senator Peterson: Is this work deemed to have been completed now and all is well?
Mr. Hanson: They have two outstanding reports that we understand they are still working on. One relates to a reference from our minister. He had asked the round table to examine provincial and territorial approaches to greenhouse gas emissions reductions. We understand that report is forthcoming in the reasonably near future.
There is a second report as part of the series they have called "Climate Prosperity " that looks at long-term approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. There is a final report on that as part of their planned series, and we understand it is also their intention to publish that report before the end of their mandate.
Senator Peterson: No one is picking up the slack; this is it?
Mr. Hanson: Obviously, a lot of other people are studying the environment and some of these issues. Of course, within the department itself, significant attention is paid in policy resources and analytics on a wide variety of environmental and sustainable development issues.
It is worth noting that part of their remit was to examine and promote sustainable development, and that has taken hold in a very significant way. For example, there is now a Federal Sustainable Development Act and there is a requirement that each department produce reports related to their own federal sustainable development practices. There will still be significant ongoing work and analytics on these issues.
Senator Callbeck: You mentioned two reports that they are working on right now. You said that the minister asked for one. Did the minister ask for the second one, too?
Mr. Hanson: No. The second one, the Climate Prosperity Series, was a series of studies that the round table launched of its own accord. I think it would be safe to say that historically the preponderance of the round table's work is self-generated in terms of setting their own agenda and that ministerial references tend to be the exception much more than the rule.
Senator Callbeck: When will this process be wound up? What is the date?
Mr. Hanson: The actual coming into force, the repeal of the statute and the dissolution of the round table as an order-in-council, there is not a stipulated date. They are obviously working to wind down their activities in a timely basis and taking steps. Obviously the secretariat that supports the round table is seeking new employment, et cetera. I do not think there is an actual date right now when we would say that the round table is no longer in place, but certainly they are on a track to complete their remaining work and to provide support to the transition of their employees as soon as possible.
Senator Callbeck: You are going to save $5.1 million annually. Roughly what percentage of that would be salaries and per diems of the board?
Mr. Hanson: I think the preponderance of it would be salary. The actual breakdown I can provide. I believe to some degree of certainty at a later date because the round table does report to Parliament, they do produce reports on plans and priorities and departmental performance reports. At least some level of detail we would provide in terms of the nature of their expenditures.
I am not certain of this, but I would basically say it would be the salary for the 30 or 31 full-time staff, the occasional hiring of consultants and so forth, simple sort of operation and management, things related to office space and computers and so forth and expenses associated with publications, et cetera, and then a certain amount related to the per diem and the travel expenses. I believe the round table meets four times a year so it would be the travel associated with that. I would assume the most significant would be the salaries.
Senator Callbeck: Very significant, but roughly what per cent?
Mr. Hanson: I am sorry, I do not have that percentage breakdown, but we will seek to provide what we can.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Hanson, do not go away. We are going to Division 53, which deals with the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, as it once was.
Mr. Hanson: In terms of the clause by clause, I may set a land speed record here this evening. I will give a little contextual background.
The Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act received Royal Assent by Parliament in 2007. Its intent and design is for the government to take the actions necessary to achieve the reductions associated with Canada's original commitment under the Kyoto protocol and to report on their actions on an annual basis in terms of the emission reductions that were associated with Government of Canada actions and to provide projections of future emissions during the course of the Kyoto period, which runs from 2008 to 2012.
The government has published an annual report as a result of the act every year since then, including the 2012 report, which was tabled roughly a few days ago. That was the 2012 plan, which has been tabled. It relates to the clause that would repeal the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act.
The Chair: This section does just that.
Mr. Hanson: It does indeed.
The Chair: When will it come into force?
Mr. Hanson: At the time of Royal Assent.
The Chair: Of the overall legislation?
Mr. Hanson: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you very much. There is nothing more to say about that one.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I want to know the fiscal impact. How much will we save with that?
Mr. Hanson: This is part of a broader approach to consolidate our reporting on climate change and emissions. There is a fair amount of overlap and duplication in reports that have emerged over time that we have tried to address. This is part of that.
In terms of the actual savings under the protocol implementation act, at the time it would be probably in the realm of perhaps three full-time employees on an annual basis and then production costs and translation. The savings themselves would be reasonably limited.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: It says here that we will finish worrying about Kyoto on December 15, 2012, so why would we have this bill in the budget? You could have brought that either earlier or in September or October. Was there any special reason to include that in the budget?
Mr. Hanson: One of the logical reasons for repeal of the legislation does stem from the fact that in December of this year the government did signal its intent to withdraw from the protocol in the context of an overall emphasis on trying to seek savings. This is deemed a logical thing to include in the budget bill. The savings are modest but it does relate to an overall attempt to try to find savings. For us, part of finding those savings is through eliminating overlap and duplication in our climate change and emissions reporting.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I have a comment. I was a member of Parliament under previous governments and we had omnibus bills that were not budget bills. By confusing the whole question and putting that in the budget, as far as I am concerned I would have been a lot more comfortable to make all these little adjustments, Mr. Chair, than to have it included in the 540 pages. I hope the government will remember that these laws exist.
In an omnibus bill, when applying a set of corrections to various bills this means that those who are knowledgeable about these questions, and this one is about the environment, we need to be almost like an encyclopedia if we are to address all these questions. They are not necessarily the skills of the people in Finance.
Hopefully, if we write a report, I would like it stated that it would have been appreciated if that were in an omnibus bill rather than in a budget bill.
The Chair: I understand your concerns. It has been expressed before and probably will be again. However, at this time we are dealing with what we have, and we thank Lawrence Hanson and Maxime Lessard-Lachance for being here this evening. We have done both of your sections from Environment Canada. I understand that Environment Canada might be appearing before some other committee, but that may not be you from Environment Canada.
Mr. Hanson: I hope not because if it is then no one has told me.
The Chair: We will not be the ones to tell you. Thank you for persevering and staying here. I am glad we were able to get those two sections done. Thank you.
Colleagues, we are going back to Division 42, which is at page 369. Mr. Child is here to tell us all about this section. We should have started this process of trying to get all of the ones you were spokesperson for done at one time but we did not. It seems to be flowing quite nicely and you are here for one section, being Division 42?
Alwyn Child, Director General, Program Development and Guidance Directorate, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: Yes, Division 42 of Part 4, amendments the Employment Equity Act to remove the requirements specific to the Federal Contractors Program. The current subsection provides that the minister shall ensure that the requirements under the Federal Contractors Program are equivalent to the requirements of the Employment Equity Act. The proposed new section gets rid of that by removing the equivalency requirement. That is essentially what is occurring here.
In so doing, what it creates is greater flexibility in the program requirements under the Federal Contractors Program. For example, under the Employment Equity Act, there is a requirement to produce an employment equity plan, workforce analysis, set measures to address under-representation where they exist and to show reasonable progress over time. This would not be a requirement under the Federal Contractors Program except through contract. The Federal Contractors Program would require these, but it would not be as a result of the Employment Equity Act. That is a consequence of the change.
The Chair: I am reading the current act and it is quite a bit more extensive in describing what the minister should do, compared to what is being said now. Is the attempt therefore to give the minister more flexibility?
Mr. Child: That is exactly it.
The Chair: That is what it would appear to be.
Mr. Child: That is exactly what it is.
Senator Ringuette: Sir, in the past five years, how many federal contracts came under this program?
Mr. Child: I do not have that information with me. I can certainly get that to you quickly.
Senator Ringuette: Could you also tell us where we can locate the legislation in this bill that gives the obligation to have an equity plan in a contract between an employer, the Government of Canada and a contractor? Where will I find the substitution that you are referring to in this bill?
Mr. Child: That is not part of the Employment Equity Act. It is the Federal Contractors Program. That is a contract program that is managed by Treasury Board with Public Works and Government Services.
Maybe I should go back a bit. The Employment Equity Act applies to the federal government public service and federally regulated employers. The Federal Contractors Program requires essentially provincially regulated employers who are seeking to have a contract with the federal government to follow the requirements of the Employment Equity Act or something similar to that. What is being done here is to remove that requirement that binds the Federal Contractors Program to be equivalent to the Employment Equity Act so that it would now be within the contract itself, the employment equity.
Senator Ringuette: I understand you are saying that you are removing a piece of legislation, legislation passed by Parliament requesting equity plans.
Mr. Child: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: You are saying to us that it will now be part of a contract, and I want to see where in this legislation it says, in legal terms, that it will be in the contract.
Mr. Child: It does not state that. It provides the flexibility to put it in the contract under the Federal Contractors Program.
Senator Ringuette: There is no obligation. You are telling us that the Minister of Labour or Minister of Public Works that assigned these contracts —
Mr. Child: The Minister of Labour would not be involved in the contracts. It would be the Treasury Board or, in this case, it would typically be Public Works and Government Services.
Senator Ringuette: I have seen in other instances how Public Works provides. For instance, I see on a daily basis what is happening here on the Hill and contracts with employers and employment equity.
Where will parliamentarians have the assurance that all these contracts will include employment equity? We have come a long way. I do not want to go back to the 1920s or the 1930s. If you are removing an obligation in one instance, I want to see where it is going to be in another place in legislation.
Mr. Child: The only explanation I can give to you is that it would be in contracts. That is the only place where it can be if this is removed from the legislation.
Senator Ringuette: There is no legislation that says that there is an obligation to the minister to have it in a contract?
Mr. Child: No.
Senator Ringuette: Goodbye, equity; that is it. There is no other explanation if the minister is not willing to put in legislation that it will now be replaced within a contractual agreement. That is it; goodbye, equity. Canada federal employment standards are going back to the 1920s and this is the start. We have another one that will reinforce that, and it is the removal of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act that is very similar. I do not know if it is one of the sections that you will be dealing with us.
Mr. Child: No, I would not be.
Senator Ringuette: It is another one, the exact same thing; repealing fair wages and fair hours of work in federal contractors and, therefore, bringing the Canadian workforce in regard to having at least a model federally to have decent wages and decent hours of work. Sir, what you are saying to us now, removing the employment equity from legislation, is bringing this country backwards to almost the 1920s. I certainly for one do not agree with that.
Senator Nancy Ruth: As I understand it, under the present system the Human Rights Commission was the group that was responsible for accountability to ensure that there was enforcement of equity and stuff like that. Is that correct?
Mr. Child: If there are complaints, the Human Rights Commission will be the one that would be enforcing them.
Senator Nancy Ruth: If the equity component is now in each individual contract, which includes university, who has the oversight and accountability in the enforcement? What happens?
Mr. Child: There are two things happening here. One, what is being amended is the Employment Equity Act, but the effect is in the Federal Contractors Program, which is a program that relates to contracts between provincially regulated employers and the federal government. Essentially, this simply has to do with the terms and conditions of the contract with the federal government. That is what this is about. It is not about employment equity per se in the act; it is seeking to ensure that the federal Employment Equity Act reaches into contracts that would not otherwise be within federal jurisdiction. It is a provincially regulated employer who would be seeking a contract with the federal government who would need to meet the terms or who in the past would have met the terms the Employment Equity Act. If it is a federally regulated employer, it has to meet the terms of the Employment Equity Act.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Does that mean that this is like an add-on to what already exists so that provincial agencies or provincial contractors will have to do it?
Mr. Child: It does not add. It removes it from being a requirement of the Federal Contractors Program as it is legislated now in the Employment Equity Act.
Senator Nancy Ruth: If the contract is broken around equity issues, what kind of enforcement mechanism is there? What will you do, sue the contractor and go to court? How are you going to do it?
Mr. Child: If it is a term of the contract, I imagine that is the way it would be handled, which is the only opportunity now left if it is not a part of the Employment Equity Act, which is the change that is occurring.
Senator Peterson: For a little clarity on this, if I am contractor in Saskatchewan and I want to do a contract with the federal government for a project in Saskatchewan, I will not be bound by this requirement. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Child: There are limits as well. The limit now is $200,000. The proposal would increase that to a $1 million contract. The provincially regulated employer would normally not be bound by any federal legislation. The Federal Contractors Program would see them having to follow, as the legislation now exists, the terms of the Employment Equity Act in seeking a contract with the federal government. What is being removed is that absolute requirement so that now that can be done through the contracting process itself. That is the change that this proposal brings.
Senator Peterson: If I am a contractor in Saskatchewan and I want to do a federal contract, I would not have to comply with this?
Mr. Child: Not by the Employment Equity Act, but by the terms of the contract, if it were within the contract itself.
Senator Peterson: What is significant about the 100 employees? What if it is 98?
Mr. Child: The employer would need to have a workforce of 100 employees in order for it to apply.
Senator Peterson: Is that cumulative? What if a contractor has different divisions and there are 25 in each division?
Mr. Child: It would be specific to each division.
Senator Peterson: If you are under the 100 in a division, you would be okay?
Mr. Child: That is right.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Could you explain why you say that there are 1,000 private sector employers under provincial jurisdiction? It seems to me that, throughout Canada, there are hundreds of thousands of companies, perhaps not hundreds of thousands of companies with over 100 employees, but there are certainly more than a thousand. Where did you get this figure of a thousand?
Secondly, in another committee, there was talk about facilitating entrepreneurship in companies led by women, and one of the ways to do this was to ensure that they were able to obtain federal government contracts. Would that mean that, under this provision, a company with a staff of 102 employees, of which 98 were women and 4 were men, the federal government could decide to not include the equity clause in the contract because, for example, in the sewing sector the labour force is primarily female, and the government could exclude itself from this equity clause?
As far as I am concerned, equity applies to both men and women. When we apply such a provision, we are not just targeting one gender, we are instead trying to achieve gender balance within the contracts. For example, if a Canadian company was in the business of producing uniforms for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, I would think that it would be quite a large company given the number of officers within the RCMP.
Could the government exclude itself from this clause? I am trying to understand why we would remove this obligation and just make it contractual; however, the way that it is presented, it seems to be optional. Will this be mandatory in the contracts? My colleague asked you the question earlier and you said that nothing in the act is mandatory.
Would it therefore be possible for a company with 100 employees and more to circumvent employment equity?
[English]
Mr. Child: I will start with the latter question first. The Employment Equity Act relates to women, Aboriginal people, visible minorities and persons with disabilities. Those are the ones for whom there would be a requirement within the contract as the law currently exists for an employment equity plan to be designed. One would have to meet the availability of those four groups.
In your situation, if I understand it correctly, if the workforce is 102 — and it would seem to me from what you are suggesting that you would have women — it is not just the total number but where they are as well within the organization. There may be issues related to where women are situated within the organization, but quite clearly, purely on the basis of numbers, unless that amounts to 102, if you have the proportionate number of visible minorities; and people with disabilities, who would be in this case women and Aboriginals, then there would not be a problem. However, you can still have a problem the way it is currently written if you have 102 but you are short on visible minorities, people with disabilities and Aboriginals.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: My specific question was: Could the minister, in certain contracts, remove the obligation for a company to have a contractual employment equity provision?
[English]
Mr. Child: The change will occur if this legislation is passed so that it would not be required in the contract as it now is a part of the Employment Equity Act. What is being removed is the requirement for these to be contained in the contract. It will be left to the contract itself to include these.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: The contract is between the ministry at the federal government and the company. Can the ministry, when they present the contract, just waive that clause of having the equity by contract and sign a contract with a company that is in that category?
Mr. Child: If amended, the law would not say that the minister must.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: You just mentioned $1 million. Here we have probably the old number, which is $200,000. Regarding the threshold for the supposed clause in the contract to have equity, those who would be more likely to have that clause would be the companies that have over 100 people and a contract of $1 million?
Mr. Child: That would be going forward within the contract, but that has not been changed. That is what will be proposed for changes to the contracting clause.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: We are dealing with provincial. I asked you why you are talking about 1,000 employers. For me, that sounds like a very small number.
Mr. Child: I think that is the number of employers who would have been involved in contracts with the federal government. I can confirm that. That is my understanding at this stage.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: It is not all the companies that likely could submit and go for a bid at the federal level?
Mr. Child: No.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: It could be higher?
Mr. Child: It could.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: There will be no more penalties of course. For me 100 people and more are midsize. It is not the small amount which was affected in the past.
Mr. Child: That is right.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I would say larger contracts, but I am like my colleague; I cannot at all support such a change because I do not have any data and I do not have any rationale for doing that. There is a sentence in the questions and answers that states as follows:
[Translation]
"The amendment is proposed to allow the Minister of Labour to improve the design and delivery of the Federal Contractors Program. " What does that mean? Improving the design and delivery because the equity clause is removed? What does that have to do with design and delivery?
[English]
Mr. Child: There are essentially three parts that comprise the employment equity programs. There is the Employment Equity Act, the federal contractors program and the racism-free workplace strategy. The plan would be to bring these three together — that is, the racism-free workplace strategy, the federal contractors program and the Employment Equity Act — and adjust the limits and the sum of the scheme from the red tape commission, the contracting levels from $200,000 to $1 million in terms of the size of the contract. The other would be to redesign a program so that there would be more partnering with unions and employers' associations to address programs that would move away from one that is strictly tied to the Employment Equity Act in terms of the requirement for an employment equity plan, which small businesses have concerns about, the administrative burden that that presents for them.
That is, in essence, the reason for moving from what currently exists to one that provides the flexibility.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Why did you not do a merger of these three and present that to us rather than just on a piecemeal basis, this measure? I think what you mentioned might make sense, but we do not have the other pieces of the equation. We just have one piece, and the two other pieces I do not see.
Mr. Child: Those pieces are not legislatively required. The Federal Contractors Program is not required by legislation, nor is the Racism-Free Workplace Strategy. It is only the Employment Equity Act that is legislated.
The Chair: Mr. Child, is it possible for us to see the contract that would be used that would have the provisions in it of the federal government requiring employment equity? You indicated it would now be entirely contractual.
Mr. Child: The contract would be dependent on whatever it would represent.
The Chair: Whatever was negotiated?
Mr. Child: It would be what would be negotiated, yes.
The Chair: Would you not have some standard clauses with respect to employment equity?
Mr. Child: For contracts that exist now, yes, there would be clauses that would be inserted into those. In the future it would not be mandated by the Employment Equity Act.
The Chair: I understand it is not legislatively mandated, but you indicated the alternative. You said not to worry because it will be in all the contracts so it will be a contractual obligation.
Mr. Child: I am not sure I said it will be in all. I am saying it will allow the freedom.
The Chair: It may or may not be.
Mr. Child: It may or may not be. The intention would be to put it in, as I understand it.
Senator Peterson: This initiative seems to be driven by the Red Tape Reduction Commission. Who are they and where are they located?
Mr. Child: This was a commission that the government set up, and I believe it filed a report six months ago or so. It went around, conducted hearings and met with stakeholders, particularly small- and medium-sized businesses, inquiring as to areas where red tape got in the way of them doing business. There were a number of suggestions made by them, including a suggestion that had to do with the requirements to produce plans. Small businesses were concerned that the requirement was onerous. That would be one concern.
Senator Peterson: Are they still active?
Mr. Child: The Red Tape Reduction Commission?
Senator Peterson: Yes.
Mr. Child: No, they have submitted a report to the government.
Senator Peterson: Just a one-shot deal, just for this?
Mr. Child: No, no, no.
The Chair: Mr. Child, this is our briefing note that we are given that gives us a nice fuzzy, warm feeling: "Organizations winning federal contracts will still be required to meet their obligations with respect to employment equity, but this obligation will be made purely contractual and stipulated in contract documents to be signed between the government and the employers winning federal contracts. " You have just told me that may or may not be there.
Mr. Child: There will be no legislation requiring it. That is what I said.
The Chair: You said it may or may not be in the contract.
Mr. Child: It would be a matter of the contract itself, as opposed to be being legislated.
The Chair: You do not have standard clauses that we could see that would bridge the gap between what you have told us and what is in our briefing note?
Mr. Child: That would have been from the past where it was a requirement.
The Chair: No, this is in the future.
Mr. Child: That is right. Nothing has been developed yet for the future.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Callbeck: I know that our time has run out here, but certainly I want to say that I strongly disagree with what the government is doing here. You are taking out the Federal Contractors Program for employment equity. That is a huge step backwards. You are affecting the Aboriginal peoples, women and people with disabilities. I cannot believe that in 2012 this is what the government is doing.
The Chair: This is a policy issue. You have made your point, and a number of people have made their points on this.
Mr. Child, thank you very much for being here and explaining to us. Not everyone is happy about what they understand or what you have said, but you have explained the situation to us. For that, we thank you.
I know there are some witnesses who were hoping we would go further. It has been a long day for us all and we are over our time now. We will adjourn for this evening.
Colleagues will be pleased to know we only have 10 divisions left, and we have been averaging five divisions an hour, so this is going along very nicely. We hope to finish this tomorrow. It is our intention to finish this tomorrow afternoon. We will begin sitting at two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
(The committee adjourned.)