Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 20 - Evidence - May 30, 2012 - Afternoon meeting
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 30, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 2 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, today we are going to continue our study on 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.
[English]
Honourable senators, as you are aware, we have been given an order of reference by the Senate to study the subject matter of Bill C-38. This is our eighth meeting, and while we are progressing fairly nicely through the bill, we still have a lot of work ahead of us, since we have not heard from anyone other than government officials thus far. We want to hear from the public, who may be impacted by this legislation, either positively or negatively, in their view.
Once again, we sincerely thank the department officials, who have appeared and continue to appear before us to explain the various clauses of the bill, and in particular, we appreciate the fact that you might have been here two or three times previously and we never got to your particular part of the bill. We are narrowing it down, however, and we thank you very much for your understanding.
As we have done in previous meetings, after there has been an explanation of the specific sections of the bill by one or both of our witnesses, I will then look around to see if there is any discussion that honourable senators wish to have on that particular part, and then we will deal with the matter accordingly.
We are in Division 32 of Part 4. It appears at page 328 of this 423-page bill. We only have 100 pages to go. That is positive.
I will now call on our witnesses, Mr. Dean Beyea and Mr. Justin Brown. Which one of you would like to be the spokesperson?
Dean Beyea, Director, International Trade Policy, International Trade and Finance, Department of Finance Canada: I will.
The Chair: You have the floor, sir.
Mr. Beyea: Thank you. I am the Director of International Trade Policy at the Department of Finance. I am here to speak about Division 32, which amends the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act.
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal is a quasi-judicial institution within Canada's trade remedy system. The CITT conducts inquiries into complaints relating to unfair trading practices, that is, dumping and subsidizing. The CITT reports to Parliament through the Minister of Finance. The tribunal is currently composed of a chair, two vice- chairs and up to four regular members who are all appointed by the Governor-in-Council.
Clauses 487 through 489 amend the CITT Act to replace the two vice-chair positions with regular permanent member positions.
The Chair: When you say "regular permanent, " does that mean there would be no vice-chairs after this?
Mr. Beyea: That is right. You would have two more regular sitting members, a chair and six regular sitting members.
The Chair: It comes into force two years from now.
Mr. Beyea: That is right.
The Chair: It will be 2014.
Mr. Beyea: It is after the current sitting vice-chair is determined.
The Chair: It will be when his or her appointed period expires.
Was there anything in proposed section 8 that we should be concerned about? Does that cover the same thing?
Mr. Beyea: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: Are the four regular members permanent, and how are they appointed?
Mr. Beyea: All the members of the CITT are Governor-in-Council appointments. They are appointed for up to two five-year terms.
Senator Ringuette: Even when you say the "permanent members, " they are term.
Mr. Beyea: Right. They are regular.
Senator Ringuette: Are the current two vice persons also permanent for a period of time?
Mr. Beyea: Yes. The chair, the two vice-chairs and the regular members are appointed for a period of up to five years, and it can be renewed one time.
Senator Ringuette: I would like you to explain to us where the savings will happen if the only thing happening here is changing the name of these positions. You have the same number of positions, essentially, even after the enactment of this bill, being permanent for a certain term limit. Where are the savings?
Mr. Beyea: The regular members are at a level below the vice-chairs, currently. The regular members are GCQ-5, and vice-chairs are GCQ-6. The vice-chairs currently do not serve any role other than being able to act on behalf of the chair.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: What does "GCQ " mean?
Mr. Beyea: It is a job classification level for Governor-in-Council appointments.
Senator Ringuette: Let us be a little more transparent here. How much is the vice-chair being paid in this position, and how much is a regular member being paid?
Mr. Beyea: I do not have their precise salaries with me, but the savings will be $92,000. It is $46,000.
Senator Ringuette: You will be saving $92,000.
Mr. Beyea: Right.
Senator Ringuette: Per year?
Mr. Beyea: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: By just putting these persons from being vice-chair to members?
Mr. Beyea: That is right.
[Translation]
The Chair: Senator Hervieux-Payette, did you understand the answer to your question? Do you need more clarification?
[English]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Actually, I must say that even though I was told what this means, this does not give me the ranking and the administration. I am not an expert. I know we have a position called EX, and so on, but where does it fit in the hierarchy of jobs? I think it is important to know if they are full time and if they are employees under the Treasury Board rules, or if are they appointees, as members, and sit when needed? I think it is important to know the status and how it works.
The Chair: Are you able to help us with that?
Mr. Beyea: Sure. I can forward the classifications with levels of pay. It is public information on the Privy Council website. I am happy to do that.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Are they employees?
Mr. Beyea: Are they employees of the government? Yes.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Governed by Treasury Board guidelines?
Mr. Beyea: They are Governor-in-Council appointments. I am uncertain whether they are governed by Treasury Board guidelines or not, but I could forward that information.
The Chair: If you could do that, forward it to our clerk and she will see that everyone gets a copy of the material in both official languages, or one or the other. Thank you very much.
Senator L. Smith: For the group, would you explain the strategy or the reason behind the change?
Mr. Beyea: It was simply, as I noted, that the vice-chairs do not serve a role different than the regular members other than being able to replace the chair. The legislation will be adjusted to allow the regular members to agree amongst themselves should someone need to replace the chair, to elect one of the regular members.
Senator L. Smith: If I understand correctly, it was to streamline and facilitate the operation. Is that correct?
Mr. Beyea: Absolutely.
Senator L. Smith: The annual savings as a result of that will be?
Mr. Beyea: It will be just under $100,000 — $92,000, which represents about 1 per cent of the annual budget of the CITT.
Senator L. Smith: It is not a case of downsizing or through attrition?
Mr. Beyea: No. It is through efficiency.
The Chair: I am confused. You indicated that the other members could choose the chair. I read proposed section 8 as saying that the minister can appoint if the chair cannot act.
Justin Brown, Senior Analyst, International Trade Policy, International Trade and Finance, Department of Finance Canada: Currently there are two vice-chair persons. The permanent members, in the absence or incapacity of the chairperson, will elect a temporary or acting chairperson. The change is, because we are removing those two vice- chairperson positions, it will become the Minister of Finance who can appoint an acting chairperson, followed by the Governor-in-Council.
The Chair: That was my understanding. I did not want the record to be unclear on that point.
Mr. Beyea, we are ad idem on that. We both agree that is what it provides.
Mr. Beyea: Yes.
Senator Peterson: I need clarification here. You started off with a chairperson, two vice-chairpersons and up to six regular members. I think you said up to four.
Senator Nancy Ruth: No; he said there were four.
Senator Peterson: There are two vacancies, then; is that what you are telling me?
Mr. Brown: Yes; two and four.
Senator Peterson: That is fine. There are two vacancies now, so you will get rid of the two vice-chairs and those two people will fill the two vacancies. At the end of the day you will have a chairperson and six regular members. Will they all be permanent, the six?
Mr. Brown: Yes. In mid-May, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity bill changed the current legislation to have one chairperson, two vice-chairpersons and up to four permanent regular members, for a total of seven Governor-in- Council appointments. With this change we are discussing today, the total number of Governor-in-Council appointments will remain seven, except there will be one chairperson and six other permanent members.
Senator Peterson: The six will be permanent?
Mr. Brown: Still permanent.
Senator Peterson: You call them six regular and permanent.
Mr. Brown: It is the same.
Senator Callbeck: These members are on salary, then, are they? It is not per diem?
Mr. Beyea: You are correct; it is salary.
Senator Callbeck: You do not have the salary figures? You do not know how much?
Mr. Beyea: No. As I said, I can forward them. We were focused on the savings here.
Senator Callbeck: We will have the same number of people on the board. We are saving $92,000 because two people are going from vice-chair to member. In other words, they each were getting $46,000 for being vice-chair plus what they got for being a member?
Mr. Beyea: The $46,000 each would be the incremental difference between the salary and benefits of the regular member versus the vice-chair.
The Chair: Seeing no other senators who wish to intervene, I would like to thank each of you for being here, for persevering, and for explaining each of these sections to us.
Next, colleagues, we will go to Division 33, International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development Act. This runs for about three pages. It is DFAIT, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
Mr. James Junke, you, sir, are here to help us with respect to Division 33 and you are from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. You have the floor.
James Junke, Director, Human Rights Policy, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: I will make a brief statement and then I will be happy to answer questions in English or in French.
On April 3 it was announced that the Government of Canada would be closing Rights and Democracy as part of its efforts to find cost efficiencies and savings. Given the challenges of Rights and Democracy, which have been well known to all for some time, it was decided that it was time to put the organization's past challenges behind us and to move forward.
On April 5 the government announced the appointment of a number of senior governmental officials to Rights and Democracy's interim board of directors in order to oversee the organization's closure. Under the interim board's direction, Rights and Democracy is currently developing a plan to guide the timely, orderly termination of its programming abroad, while seeking to minimize the impact on the ground.
The Government of Canada remains committed to promoting freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law around the world each and every day. From Canada's ambassadors and embassy personnel around the world, to our staff at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and at the Canadian International Development Agency in Ottawa, Government of Canada officials continue to work to support democracy and human rights internationally.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade funds democracy support projects around the world, mainly through the $3 million — that is in the present fiscal year — democracy envelope of the Glyn Berry Program, named after a colleague who lost his life in Afghanistan. DFAIT's democracy support is complemented by a much larger envelope for long-term good governance, human rights and rule of law support, managed by CIDA, which totalled over $204 million in fiscal 2010-11.
The Chair: I would like you to go through the sections and tell us how these sections are achieving what you just said to us.
Mr. Junke: In terms of which sections?
The Chair: All the sections that appear in this division. We will be asked to do this exercise. We will be asked to give clause-by-clause consideration, and you are here to help us understand what each clause is attempting to achieve, in addition to your introductory remarks.
If you go to the first clause, 490, of this bill, it deals with section 31 of the act. Tell us what that is doing. I think you can go through it quite quickly if we just proceed that way.
Mr. Junke: I am sorry. I do not have the act in front of me clause by clause.
The Chair: You do not have the act in front of you?
You now have the act. Senator, thank you very much. I hate to take your briefing book away from you. The witness now has an act.
To refresh your memory, we are dealing with the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development Act.
Mr. Junke: Yes.
The Chair: This bill, Bill C-38, amends certain clauses of that act. We would like you to talk about those various clauses so that we will be in a position to give clause-by-clause consideration.
Mr. Junke: Looking at the full document on page 329 — is that correct?
The Chair: Yes, begin at the beginning.
Mr. Junke: Proposed section 31?
The Chair: Yes. It is actually clause 490 of Bill C-38, which amends and replaces — we can read it. I assume you have done this. You know what is in here. Just tell us what is here.
Mr. Junke: In terms of proposed section 31(1), as indicated, there has been an interim board struck, and they are overseeing the work of Rights and Democracy staff to develop a plan for closure. I know this plan is slated to be completed by the end of July. It involves a number of various steps, which I can go through.
I am turning now to page 330.
The Chair: Would you like us to stand you down so you have a chance to read this?
Mr. Junke: Do you want me to answer each and every clause in detail?
The Chair: Not in detail. You have given us an opening statement. We just want to see how that opening statement is achieved by these various sections. I could give you some time. We could go on to another section and give you some time to read this, if you would like.
Mr. Junke: Yes. I was asked to replace someone yesterday afternoon. I had a statement and I had questions and answers prepared, but it did not have a clause-by-clause preparation at all. I thought the questions would be more general in terms of that. I guess I will have to stand down.
The Chair: If you would not mind, we can bring you on after we do a couple of divisions. By that time you will be able to say that a certain section achieves this, this, and this.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: He will not be more prepared in 10 minutes than in half an hour. He was not given a chance to prepare. Can we put some questions on the table, and if he cannot reply today, then we could have the answer at another time? Actually, I already have some questions that could be answered by him, now or later. I feel that coming to the same subject in half an hour would not give him the appropriate answer, since he has not been prepared to answer our specific questions.
The Chair: Senator Hervieux-Payette, if we start with your questions, we will go through the whole thing, and then the questions will be answered in writing as opposed to his ability to answer them orally. I am in your hands, colleagues. Do you want to continue with the witness?
Senator Nancy Ruth: Yes, I do. I have questions too.
The Chair: Thank you. I appreciate that. We still want a clause-by-clause description of this, but you are not in a position to do that now. We will put on the record the various questions that colleagues have, and then we will not have another series of questions when we get the clause-by-clause because the questions will be there, other than ones that flow from what you might have to say.
Senator Nancy Ruth: One of the wonderful things about Rights and Democracy was this outstanding work it did in terms of women around the world. You are from the department of human rights or something in DFAIT now. It always seemed to me that Rights and Democracy did work that DFAIT was not doing. How can you assure me that DFAIT will pick up the slack?
Mr. Junke: As I indicated, Rights and Democracy, of course, was created by an Act of Parliament. It is independent. It did its work. It was part of a broad spectrum of organizations and governments that did work in this area. CIDA, of course, does programming in excess of $200 million a year. The funding right now that is allocated for Rights and Democracy, which is $9.2 million, will be unallocated until we put options to the minister. However, we have, at Foreign Affairs, $4.9 million of that and CIDA has $4.2 million of that, so we will be putting proposals forward to the minister for his consideration to do just that.
Our department, through the Glyn Berry fund, as mentioned, also work in collaboration with our stabilization and reconstruction task force, which has substantial funding as well. They work in countries like the DRC and Haiti and Colombia, amongst others, the Sudans, and CIDA's programming. There is substantial work done within the Government of Canada on an ongoing basis on the promotion of democracy, and in particular in the area of women's rights.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I would like to see more, and I would like to have a clearer position from DFAIT on the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, the kind of work that Rights and Democracy did so well.
Mr. Junke: We will take note of that. I know my colleagues in START are the lead on UN Security Council Resolution 1325.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Under subclause 493(4), they do not have any right to claim or receive any compensation, damages, indemnity or other form of relief from Her Majesty in right of Canada, but I still get the impression that the Government of Canada cannot exempt employers; when a company closes down or moves to another place and employees are laid off, compensation has to be provided.
So I would like to know what the total compensation envelope is for all the employees that will be let go and their status—I am sure my colleague Senator Ringuette will add to my request—and I would also like to know what the president will personally receive after the closure.
In terms of closing costs, rent has to be factored in because people are going to be transferred and you are going to be in a location where you have to pay.
Under paragraph 494(3)(b), I am also wondering why Public Works is not responsible for disposing of assets; I feel that they have more knowledge than people from a human rights commission who are not properly qualified to dispose of all the assets. I would like to understand the approach.
Finally, I would like to see the overall assessment of savings, since the mandate will be carried out elsewhere. If we have 30 employees and millions of dollars, we have to have people administering the budgets. So I would like to know what portion of the budget is left for programs, whether for women or other clients, and what will be used for the administration of the new structure inside the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
The idea right now is to close this box to save money, but are we going to save at the expense of democracy or are we going to save by being more productive? I would like to have the precise details about the new structure and the closing of the current structure. Are we going to save a few executive positions and send all the employees to the Department of Foreign Affairs? Those are some of the questions we should ask ourselves as we study the bill.
Mr. Junke: As I said earlier, a board of senior departmental officials was developing an action plan for the director and employees in preparation for the closing of Rights and Democracy. There were 41 employees in Montreal, and a few others in Afghanistan and Haiti. Continued efforts have been made to help those employees find other jobs. Compensation will be provided. That will obviously not be one of the main components in the action plan prepared by the director and his colleagues.
In terms of the funding for the program, I mentioned an amount of $9.2 million to be shared between Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada and CIDA, with $4.9 million going to Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, and $4.2 million to CIDA.
As for the new structure, I cannot say, because the minister has not finished weighing all the options that we are proposing and still has to shed some light on the situation. We are going to send you a detailed answer afterwards.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: First, it is important to have the net benefit and to know what can prevent the deficit from growing. But it is still important to know which employees will be under what classification, and what will happen to executive members and the indemnities that will be paid out, since, under the legislation as written, they will not have any right to claim or receive any compensation. It is already sort of odd that a human rights organization is not going to compensate the people it is laying off. In my view, they are squaring the circle because this falls under workers' fundamental rights; when you lay off people, you have financial obligations towards them.
I think this clause go against the very spirit of the organization because, under the human rights charter, in any democracy, employees who are let go, receive compensation when their positions are eliminated.
Mr. Chair, I hope that we will get the numbers as soon as possible.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: I have several questions, one on the employees. You said there were 41 in Montreal and a few others. According to the material here, it says there are 92 employees identified in the centre's most recent annual report. That is a lot of people involved.
An interim board of senior officials are coming up with a plan. When do they anticipate that this centre will be closed?
Mr. Junke: It will be by the end of July.
Senator Callbeck: Are the senior officials consulting anyone or just closing it down?
Mr. Junke: The plan is being developed by the director of the centre and his staff themselves and then will be reviewed by the senior committee officials.
Senator Callbeck: It is all officials; it is all within government. They are not reaching out to get the views of anyone else?
Mr. Junke: I have the list of board members here somewhere. We can provide that to you. I do not believe so.
Senator Callbeck: How much will it cost to close this place down?
Mr. Junke: I do not have those figures. I will have to provide them.
Senator Callbeck: It would be very interesting for the committee if you would supply those to us, please, at a later date.
Mr. Junke: I do not have the figures because it is being developed.
Senator Callbeck: You have no idea how much it will cost.
Mr. Junke: I cannot give you precise figures.
Senator Callbeck: You say you are doing it for savings, so how much money will we save?
Mr. Junke: I cannot give a precise figure but, ultimately, once the compensation is paid out to these employees, going forward there will be a net savings of all those salaries, for beginners. I do not have details on that because I am not part of that process, which is developed by the centre director and staff themselves in close consultation with the board, and that is an ongoing process.
Senator Callbeck: In Division 33, were the domestic and international stakeholders or was anyone consulted prior to the drafting of this?
Mr. Junke: I do not believe so.
Senator Ringuette: First, I have my usual series of questions. Mr. Junke, you can provide the answers by writing. How many employees in that organization got a notice letter of layoff? By classification, how many of them were EX and how many DMs? How many staffers in that organization are not under the Public Service Employment Act and under what classification?
I guess my fourth question is irrelevant right now. You indicated to this committee that the minister had given notice of the closure on April 5. Did I understand that right?
Mr. Junke: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: How did the minister notify the board members and the employees? Were they notified by letter on April 5?
Mr. Junke: That is my understanding, in writing on April 5.
Senator Ringuette: Can you confirm that one way or the other?
It is also my understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, that the current board members, the chair and directors, were all appointees within the last six years by the GIC. Am I right or am I wrong?
Mr. Junke: I believe so. In terms of the time period, I am not sure. I am not expert on that. I will have to get you an answer.
Senator Ringuette: I would like the members of this committee to have a copy of the letter of the notification to the chair and the different directors.
Mr. Junke: Do you mean the chair of the board?
Senator Ringuette: Yes, the notice that was provided to these people, and if there is any indemnity that is going to be provided, if that was in a subsequent letter; and when were the terms of their respective mandates to be terminated? If they were appointed for four years, five years, three years, whatever, when was the end date of their term?
Mr. Junke: I will have to get you that information.
Senator Ringuette: I understand that you would not have that, sir, with you. Were there any international directors on the board on April 5?
Mr. Junke: I do not know. I will have to get the answer to that question.
Senator Ringuette: Mr. Chair, with all due respect, before we move on to any other kind of discussions with regard to this section, we certainly need to have answers. I just want to flag this.
The Chair: I understand; and that was made clear at the beginning of this section.
Senator Peterson: It is clarified as best it can be.
The Chair: Mr. Junke, I have a question with respect to page 330 under the heading, "Closing Out of Affairs, " clauses 492 and 493. In regard to subclause 493(4), I want to know why you are allowing the president to be compensated but not any of the other directors. What is the policy basis for that?
Mr. Junke: I am sorry, I cannot answer.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: We were provided with the briefing book. I will read from the book prepared by the ministry.
[Translation]
So why close Rights and Democracy? The answer was: Given the challenges of Rights and Democracy, which have been well known to all for some time, it was decided that it was time to put the organization's past challenges behind us and to move forward. Let us be honest, if we were to close all government agencies that are not working properly, we would be closing a lot more than Rights and Democracy. Why have other solutions not been found to fix the problem instead of transferring the responsibility to departments or bodies that sometimes do not provide the services that we might expect? I am not going to say more about that.
But a statement like that is very important in Quebec. Quebec had a great deal of respect for Rights and Democracy until the former president passed away under mindboggling and obscene circumstances. I think that, rather than going down that road, it is better to stay at arm's length, so to speak, given that the government was in full control of this organization and could appoint all the competent individuals it wanted. This organization played an important role in this context, and Rights and Democracy is not something you play with.
I would like to have a different answer than the one that was probably provided to us by your organization. Telling us that everyone knew about how dysfunctional it was. . . Well, maybe the people within the organization knew. But one thing is certain; I think it is the government's duty to ensure that the people who are hired are competent to fulfill their obligations. Why would they be more competent in departments x, y, and z? That is what I am wondering about and I would like a different answer than "well known to all. "
[English]
Mr. Junke: I have taken note.
The Chair: Those are all the questions we have at this time. We look forward to seeing you or one of your colleagues back to help us with Division 33, pages 329 to 333.
Mr. Junke: I apologize for not having all the replies; I was not informed that I had to have them. We will get back to you.
The Chair: I am sorry you did not have that communicated to you because that is the way we have been operating for about a month. Some of your colleagues have been here several times. That is fine; we will rectify that.
Mr. Junke: We will provide the written answers when we come back.
The Chair: They do not have to be written. When you come back, you can deliver them at that time.
We will move to Division 34, amendments to the Health of Animals Act, another important piece of legislation arising out of the budget. We have with us Ms. Colleen Barnes and Ms. Penny Greenwood from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
[Translation]
Colleen Barnes, Executive Director, Domestic Policy Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank the committee for inviting us here today.
[English]
I am here today to describe the proposed changes to the Health of Animals Act included in Bill C-38. These changes will not have an impact on the effective food system we have in Canada. In general, the proposed changes to the act would allow the minister to declare a primary and secondary control zone in order to manage an animal disease outbreak, either foreign or domestic, in Canada.
The objective of the changes proposed here is to provide an additional mechanism to address animal diseases, which we do not have currently. For serious diseases, eradication is and will continue to be our initial response. Often, that can include a quarantine of farms and premises. In many areas, we are successful at eradication. In some instances, however, disease can be become so well established that eradication measures are no longer possible and quarantine is no longer effective. This new approach with the authorities we are seeking through the bill will provide us with new measures to respond to these particular situations and will put us in line with recognized international approaches to managing disease.
Mr. Chair, would you like me to go ahead with a clause-by-clause description?
The Chair: You have given us the overview, so you can tell us how these clauses achieve that overview.
Ms. Barnes: A number of these are technical and consequential amendments, so I will focus on where we have made changes to bring in the zones.
Clauses 506 and 507 are technical changes.
The Chair: About your technical change at 507, we should know why regulation is being eliminated and what the substitute is for that. We understand regulations in this Senate committee, and we have a Scrutiny of Regulations Committee that looks at them. You are removing that authority for regulations. What are you substituting for it?
Ms. Barnes: I believe we are moving these authorities up to the level of the act, and so we will not need the regulation, per se.
Penny Greenwood, National Manager, Animal Health and Welfare Management, Canadian Food Inspection Agency: They will be replaced by a combination of two things: The regulations referred to in that clause are ministerial regulations; and we noted that they have never been used in the history of the Health of Animals Act. We will retain the ability to have Governor-in-Council regulations. We are replacing the ability to make zones through declaration rather than regulation. It is a combination of Governor-in-Council regulation and ministerial declaration.
The Chair: It is the second aspect that causes us some concern because we do not have a mechanism to scrutinize those in the way that we do with regulations. We have seen in a number of acts that we are getting away from regulations and having the minister just make declarations. Is there a period of time? Are you going to come to that here?
Ms. Greenwood: Yes.
The Chair: We should be looking for how the public will be protected so they know what they are obliged to follow. If it is not regulatory authority and it is by ministerial declaration, how will the public become aware of that and how much time will they have to react to it?
Ms. Barnes: Clause 508: Certain animal disease agents are shed into the environment where they can persist indefinitely and become more infectious over time. Environmental contamination is a well-documented source of new infection for certain diseases. Currently, as our act is structured, it is not possible for us to remove a declaration of an infected place that is being maintained on a farm, for example, a quarantine if we are not able to eradicate that disease. That is just a function of the way the legislation is currently written. The proposed change would allow the CFIA to lift these declarations of infected places, where a primary control zone has been declared, and to allow the owners of the premises to move their animals within the declared primary control zone. For example, in the case of avian influenza, where we have had success, if we were not able to eradicate that disease, we would not currently have a mechanism for removing the quarantines from these farms. This gives us a tool in line with international approaches.
Section 27(1) of that clause would provide the legal justification to create the primary control zone where the minister believes a disease exists. This subsection also sets the scene for the creation of a secondary zone, which is a new concept that we are introducing in this act.
Section 27(2) was a technical change.
Section 27(3) will allow for the movement of the appropriate designated animals and things to stop automatically when the minister issues a declaration. These animals and things would then require permits and conditions, which may or may not allow them to move, depending on the disease and the situation.
With regard to section 27.1(1), currently, zones can be created in regulations, so the proposed amendments would allow for primary zones to be restricted to a smaller area with strict movement controls. The amendments would then allow for the creation of a secondary control zone. This is where we introduce that concept in the legislation.
These zones would cover areas where the disease is not believed to exist but some restrictions or monitoring are required to ensure that the disease remains confined to the primary control zone. This approach is in accordance with accepted international models for the zoning of diseases and is not currently enshrined in our statutes. We note here that the minister would be able to declare zones without regulations. This goes to the chair's first point.
They may be set up and modified rapidly in response to the movement of a disease. That was the rationale for moving them to the level of the act.
Section 27.1(2), gives the authority required to enable the minister to declare a secondary control zone if it turns out that the primary disease is actually in a country contiguous to Canada, the United States, for example. We would have the authority to set up a secondary control zone in Canada to monitor and make sure that the disease does not come in and to position us should it enter.
Section 27.1(3) clarifies the species or categories of animals and things to which the movement prohibition or permit requirement would apply if a zone is declared.
Section 27.1(4) modifies the movement controls prescribed for zones in the existing Health of Animals Regulations and now enables them to be applied to secondary zones, the new zones created with the provisions. In contrast to the primary zone where, by default, there are movement restrictions, in the secondary zone, the minister would have to prescribe the requirements in this zone. I note that in the secondary control zone we do not expect the disease to be present. It is a management tool.
The Chair: I will stop you there. In section 27.5, the minister may make regulations. Do you see that?
Ms. Greenwood: That has to do with the movement of people and the protection of the environment.
The Chair: There is still a scheme for regulations but not as many.
Ms. Greenwood: There are several schemes. They are different regulations. Like I said, that one was an existing one. The only thing changed in section 27.5 was the actual name "primary control zone " from "control area. "
I would like to go back and clarify your first question. We have always had the ability for a minister to declare an area associated with disease, and I do not think we have had an issue, in the past, with enabling the public to know what the requirements are. The major change there is that it was a control area, with zones made by regulations within it. First, we are bringing ourselves up to date and calling it a zone and not a control area, so many of these changes are —
The Chair: Just using the new wording.
Ms. Greenwood: Correct.
The second thing is that we are having another zone outside, which is in accordance with international models and guidelines. Section 27.5 was an existing section that we decided to leave alone. It has to do with restricting the movement of people and basically doing things that may impact on the environment, but we basically just changed the name from control area to primary control zones. As you said, we have left in the ability, which comes later, to make Governor-in-Council regulations, if required, for other things.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Barnes: Mr. Chair, should I pick up at section 27.6?
The Chair: Pick up wherever you feel comfortable following along.
Ms. Barnes: Maybe we will go back. We were at Section 27.1(5), I believe. This addition is required to clarify that a recipient of an order under the act is subject to the same requirements for compliance as recipients of permits issued under our existing health of animal rights.
Section 27.2 allows for the issuance of permits for movement, and 27.3 clarifies that the minister can amend or revoke the declaration of a primary or secondary control zone. We have talked about section 27.5.
Section 27.6(1) has the requirements currently prescribed in regulations for zones within the control area, which are being shifted to act. Those are the ones we are moving up to the level of the authorities in the act and applying to both zones.
Subsections 27.6(2) and (3) were technical changes because of the new name, as was 28(1).
I am at subsection 28(2). It ensures that the minister is responsible for due diligence in informing effected persons in the control zones of the restrictions and conditions that apply to their animals and things.
I believe that was one of your concerns, Mr. Chair.
Then we have clause 509, section 33, which said that the decision to declare a primary or secondary control zone will rest with the minister. We feel that the decisions for the declarations of the zone are appropriately at that level of the minister, but the identification of species and things capable of transmitting a disease and the permits and conditions associated with movements within the zone are technical and change frequently during the management of a disease. Therefore, we are proposing here that this be delegated to the inspectors.
Clause 510, section 53, enables owners of all animals and things ordered treated or disposed of by the minister to be eligible for compensation.
Clause 511 is technical in nature.
In clause 512 we have proposed paragraph 64(1)(z.3.1). We are now into the regulation-making authorities currently in the Health of Animals Act. This new one is for the possibility to make regulations to require the reporting of movement. We know, through the work that we are doing with our industry stakeholders, that they are asking us to use the existing information they have for traceability purposes for our movement reporting, so we are enabling that.
Clause 515 is the coming in force section, which we have specified as January 1, 2013.
The remainder are largely administrative or minor changes, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you. That is helpful.
I was just reading about the coming into force, and you are trying to cover the situation where the act may not be passed until after January of next year. That is interesting. Just a little levity for my colleagues.
Senator Ringuette: Ms. Barnes, since yesterday you got my list of questions. I am confident that you will supply the answers shortly to our clerk.
However, with regard to the modification to the control zones that you have just explained to us, are there any additional operating costs for the department?
Ms. Barnes: No. In fact, this saves us money and that is why it is in the budget implementation bill. Right now if you read section 26 of the Health of Animals Act, when we go in and declare a farm infected — unless we can eradicate the disease or it comes to a point where it is not harmful to animals or humans anymore — we cannot take away that quarantine. That is an intensive exercise for us in terms of sampling and activities we have to take.
This measure now allows a third option. If we have a disease that we cannot eradicate — and with climate change increasingly that danger is rising — we wanted to make sure we had the tools. If we cannot eradicate, we have a way of putting a zone in place around the area — that would be the primary control zone — and there we would be less intensive in our activities in that zone, saving the government money. We would then establish the secondary zone to manage, to ensure that the disease does not extend beyond this control zone.
The other reason it is in the budget implementation bill is this approach is well recognized internationally. It is our effort to get this enshrined in our own legislation and it is well recognized as a manner to keep trade rolling when you have these instances; you can limit the areas that you are not trading from. It then allows trade to happen outside of the zones.
Senator Ringuette: What are the savings?
Ms. Barnes: We do not have a dollar figure because it is a tool that will be generally available, no matter what the disease. It is hard to anticipate, with climate change, what might happen.
Senator Ringuette: Ms. Barnes, I beg to differ with your department and the minister responsible for your department. This section has absolutely nothing to do with a budget bill. This is strictly a technical operation thing and adds no cost. You say that eventually it may bring savings. It has absolutely no place in a budget bill.
Senator Buth: Thank you for coming here today. Can you articulate what international models this approach is based on?
Ms. Barnes: I will start and I will turn to Ms. Greenwood.
We have the World Organisation for Animal Health guidelines and approaches prescribed in there for the international community to use in the case of animal health disease. It recommends approaches to managing diseases all with a view to ensuring that trade is not unduly hampered.
Ms. Greenwood: As Ms. Barnes said, this is in line with the World Health Organization or the OIE guidelines. They have a detailed description and set of guidelines on how to set up zoning, both for domestic diseases, as well as exotic or emerging foreign animal diseases, which we have used. We would use it in the case of foot-and-mouth disease, if we had it; we have used to some degree with avian influenza, or AI, but we have been hampered by the restrictions on our ability to use them because of our legislation.
In the new era, as Ms. Barnes said, we do need this tool in our tool kit to start using on domestic diseases. With all due respect, Senator Ringuette, we have some diseases in the country whereby we would like to put these options on the table in front of industry, in a consultative process; things like equine infectious anemia. We have situations where we can no longer maintain the quarantines for logistical and financial reasons and we would like to discuss with industry openly whether or not this is an approach that we can do. However, without the legislation, we cannot start the consultations and therefore we cannot bring forward those options with the dollar amounts that the senators would like at this point in time.
Senator Buth: Would this also apply to something like chronic wasting disease, which is a serious issue in some of the Western provinces?
Ms. Greenwood: It is a tool that we could apply to that particular situation, yes. Again, we would have to put it on the table as an option and go forward in a consultative process, with provinces and the industry.
Senator Buth: In that case, there would likely be cost savings in terms of being able to implement something like this?
Ms. Greenwood: Yes. As Ms. Barnes described, the idea of zoning for domestic diseases is that you put a boundary around an area where you believe the disease is established. Instead of spending any kind of resources in that area, you focus all your resources on just the perimeter. Depending on the size of the zone and nature of the disease, the amount that you will save — compared to if you continue to try to eradicate on every individual farm — could be smaller or larger, depending on the disease and the situation.
Senator Buth: It is good to see a responsible approach like this being used.
Senator Peterson: Following up on the chronic wasting disease, primarily in wild game animals, the only way you can determine that is by taking the head in to have the brain tested.
Ms. Greenwood: Correct.
Senator Peterson: Do you work with the provinces to make it a condition on a licence that if you kill an animal, you have to take it in?
Ms. Greenwood: First, it depends whether you are talking about farm cervids which is primarily our responsibility, or wild cervids, which is a provincial responsibility. There are programs in many provinces for mandatory testing of heads on farms that raise cervids, but it is not a federal mandatory requirement. We do run a voluntary herd certification program in which we also require testing of all mature dead animals.
The provinces need to target their resources. In areas of the wild where they want to find out if the disease is there or is not there, they put forward programs where they promote the testing to hunters and request that they drop off heads and provide free testing. It is a variable situation, depending if you are talking farm or wild, and depending on which province and where.
Senator Peterson: Have you found any links between wild game animals and farm animals in chronic wasting?
Ms. Greenwood: Yes.
Senator Peterson: That would encourage you to want to address it with the province. You have to eliminate the animal. What do you do with them if you are concerned about them infecting farm animals?
Ms. Greenwood: In an area in Canada where CWD is established in the wild, an approach such as zoning is reasonable to discuss and put on the table as an option.
Senator Peterson: On a farm, if you determine there are diseased animals or something is wrong and you want to eradicate the herd, is there compensation to the farmer?
Ms. Greenwood: Absolutely.
Senator Peterson: Full compensation?
Ms. Greenwood: Full compensation for the market cost of the animal, as well as the cost of the destruction or disposal of the animals.
Ms. Barnes: The legislation is clear. It is just the market value plus the disposal cost.
Senator Peterson: Is there any chance for a second opinion or you just do what you say. They have to be eradicated. Is there any appeal process?
Ms. Greenwood: As far as the order for destruction is concerned, no. We do have absolute authority on that, which has been upheld by the courts many times.
Regarding the compensation, yes, there is an appeal process and even the standard process brings in three opinions. It brings in an evaluator appointed by the producer, an evaluator appointed by us, and then we act as the arbitrator in the difference of that opinion.
Senator Callbeck: Ms. Barnes, you talked about industry stakeholders. Has there been any discussion with these stakeholders, and do they have any concerns about any of these amendments? There are an awful lot of amendments here. Did I take from what Ms. Greenwood said that there has been no discussion? Am I wrong on that?
Ms. Barnes: This suite of proposed changes is a new tool that we will have at our disposal, which we did not have before. As Ms. Greenwood was describing, we could not really put it on the table in a disease situation because we were not equipped to put that option out there. I would note, however, that these are totally in line with the approaches in the international guidelines area. It is not a surprise for anyone, and it is generally recognized internationally that this is a prudent way to manage these diseases.
Senator Callbeck: Have you had any discussion with your industry stakeholders?
Ms. Greenwood: Yes, we have.
Senator Callbeck: They have not expressed any concerns about any of these amendments?
Ms. Greenwood: Since they are based on international guidelines, they are fully supportive of the changes. Industry and stakeholders across a range of sectors, as well as our provincial partners, as well as our international partners, such as the USDA, are fully supportive of us having the tools to approach zoning in an internationally accepted manner. How we apply it in individual situations has not been discussed because, as Ms. Barnes said, they are waiting for us to have the legislative base so that we can discuss it.
Another example would be the apiary business right now, the beekeepers. They have approached us, and they very much want us to be able to zone small-hive beetle in Canada. We cannot. We have said we are willing to look at this and we are willing to work with them, should we have the legislative base to do it. However, until we do, we cannot discuss this approach any further with them.
Senator Callbeck: The beekeepers have approached you, but in this case that we are talking about here with all these amendments, did the industry stakeholders approach you? Did they ask for these amendments, or are they coming from the inspection agency?
Ms. Greenwood: They are coming from both ways. The industry has clearly said they want us to have the ability to zone, and to zone properly in an internationally accepted manner, and they want our zoning approach to be acceptable certainly to the U.S., if not to all international stakeholders. They look to us to have the expertise to put forward the legislation that appropriately does that.
Senator Callbeck: Everyone is happy, then, with the legislation?
Ms. Greenwood: Certainly it became public. You could find this legislative change through a Google search. It became public several weeks ago. A number of our stakeholder organizations did contact us, and through Open Parliament they were referred to the legislative text. We have not received any negative comments, despite their being able to read all of the legislative changes.
Senator Callbeck: They just became aware of it by seeing it on the computer two or three weeks ago. Is that what you are saying?
Ms. Greenwood: The actual text, yes, but they have been aware that we would like to pursue and they have been encouraging us to pursue, certainly after each of our foreign animal disease outbreaks, such as the outbreaks we have had of AI over the last several years. They have been encouraging us to pursue appropriate legislative changes so that we can do zoning appropriately.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Could you clarify your international consensus for me? I would like to know whether your approach to changing the legislation is pretty much the same as the one used by the United States and by our OECD competitors.
Second, could you tell me who is going to make the decision about the primary and secondary zones and based on what criteria? You are talking about primary and secondary zones, which could include a farm, a constituency or a province. How are you going to determine the primary and secondary zones? I do not understand. When you introduce legislation that refers to specific areas, there are usually criteria defined in the legislation so that the minister can ultimately determine whether those criteria have been met.
You said that the affected people did not have a negative reaction. We have to recognize that, when a bill of this scope is introduced, many people will be affected, but they will not realize until September or the following year. And when they are going to realize, they will ask parliamentarians why they passed that legislation. Why have you not first consulted with individuals, with the associations and the farmers, in order to let them know how you were planning to fix the problem?
Could you also tell us who the stakeholders are? Are farm organizations the major groups being represented? That was the case in Quebec. Have those people asked you to go in the direction that you are headed? Have they sent you letters in the past? Even if they have not responded, that does not mean that they agree. It is very difficult for the public at large to have a mechanism to review our legislation in order to be able to examine the impact on their own operations.
Have the provinces agreed? Have they expressed their views on this matter? My colleagues and I are not on the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, but on the Committee on National Finance. Perhaps my colleagues who are more knowledgeable in agriculture would have a different opinion, but you are here before the Committee on National Finance as a result of parliamentary procedure. So could you tell me if the provinces are going to be happy about this decision?
You are going to do the consultation afterwards. Usually, in the parliamentary process in Canada, we introduce a bill, we have consultations and then we pass it. When we pass a budget, there are no consultations. If we asked all the organizations across Canada, regardless of the disease or type of farm animal, be they sheep or cows with various diseases, I think that we would get some answers that might satisfy the parliamentarians who are happy with this new direction.
Mr. Chair, we are not talking about just one clause; there are a number of clauses. So could you tell me if the provinces have already made their wishes known? And could you also tell me whether the people you call stakeholders, and I call "the people concerned, " will be invited?
The Chair: Your question went on for five minutes. We do not have a lot of time to address all those aspects. So do you have an answer to those questions?
[English]
Ms. Greenwood: I will start on some of the points that the senator has raised. Starting with the first point of your question regarding the legal test, this was scrutinized heavily by the legal drafters at Justice Canada. The legal test for the primary control zone is identical to the legal test for the control area, which is in our existing legislation. I would remind you that the change in converting the control area to the primary control zone is one of name only. The Minister of Agriculture has always had that ability, and the legal test remains the same. He must believe that the disease exists. We would have to demonstrate proof, whether it is test results, epidemiological studies or whatever to demonstrate that the disease must exist there. We cannot arbitrarily draw a line in the sand and say this is a primary control zone. We have to have scientific rationale to document the belief of the existence of the disease. That has always been the case.
The delegation of the disease, again, is an existing authority. The designation of the species and the products is done based on the science of the disease. If we cannot scientifically prove that a species or a product is a risk, then it would make no sense; it would not be defensible. Again, the test for the designation of the species and the products is that it is scientifically capable of spreading the disease. That is in the legislation.
Regarding some of your questions associated with consultations, when we say "stakeholders, " we include industry groups, individual producers, as well as provincial and territorial governments. Our agriculture stakeholders include some very large groups, such as the National Farmed Animal Health and Welfare Council, which is a group that has been relatively recently formed.
Prior to that, we had the Canadian Animal Health Consultative Committee, and it is a combination of province and industry. That is a group that has been formed to provide policy direction to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency on animal health. That is a group that, as I said, expects us to follow international guidelines.
When we publish lessons learned from our outbreaks of foreign animal disease, one of the lessons that has repeatedly come up has been our lack of legislative base for approaching foreign animal disease outbreaks in an internationally recognized zoning framework. Therefore, they are fully supportive of us correcting that situation.
Similarly, the Canadian Animal Health Coalition, another large organization, has also expressed that sentiment over the years. We are currently under the RCC, pursuing harmonization between the U.S. and Canada on our approach to zoning. These changes are critical to harmonizing our approach with that country.
As far as the provinces and the stakeholders go, the provinces certainly endorse this approach in principle, and in legislative principle. When it comes to what the stakeholders would think about any one particular policy, that has to be done on a disease-specific basis. You have to go forward to them, such as to the sheep industry.
Right now, in my opinion, there are not any reportable diseases under the federal responsibility — under CFIA's responsibility — for which zoning is an appropriate approach. There are some. We have talked about them — with the horses, EIA; with the bees; and with the cervids — in which case you develop a proposal and put it forward and consult on it specifically.
However, the legislative base is not that specific. It is a broad legislative base that would allow us to develop these proposals in the future.
The point is that none of our stakeholders will react negatively or tremendously positively, other than that they continue to say, "We want you to have the framework that enables Canada to follow the international guidelines, absolutely. You should have that. It is a bare minimum. "
However, as far as reacting negatively, they will not do that specifically until such time as you put a disease-specific and a geography-specific example on the table. We have not done that to date because we have not been able to do it, except in things like outbreaks of AI, where we have used the control area regulations. We have done that in the past, and there has been no negative feedback on the minister declaring control areas for HI — highly-pathogenic avian influenza — in the past. We have used it several times in this decade.
Senator Ringuette: We have just heard Ms. Greenwood saying in the last few minutes that the CFIA Advisory Committee on Animal Health has repeatedly recommended these changes and that the Canadian Animal Health Association has, for years, requested these changes.
Therefore, I want to restate the fact that this should have been brought forth a few years ago, and not in a budget bill.
The Chair: That will be a good argument for third reading of this bill, when we get there, if we do.
Thank you very much, Ms. Barnes and Ms. Greenwood. We are appreciative of you following the model and the pattern we have set. You have explained a rather technical explanation in quite understandable terms for mere senators.
The Canada School of Public Service will be the last group we will be able to get started on today. They have been sitting here all day, so we owe it to them to get started, at least.
That would be Division 35. There are only 56 divisions, so we are moving.
We will discuss the Canada School of Public Service Act. Ms. Michele Brenning and Ms. Nancy Leigh are here to help us. You should know all about these proposed changes.
Michele Brenning, Vice-President, Strategic Directions, Program Development and Marketing, Canada School of Public Service: I will start and my colleague can help me out.
Thank you for the opportunity today. I am one of the vice-presidents at the Canada School of Public Service. Essentially, our mandate is to provide training to public servants. We are an internal service provider.
The amendments that are in the bill relate to changes to the Canada School of Public Service Act to eliminate the board of governors. The board provided the deputy minister of the school with advice on our priorities, and they reviewed our strategic directions, our business planning and our performance results.
The board operated with 11 members, including a chair, and two ex officio members. It was composed of public service members as well as GIC-appointed non-public service members.
The terms on the public service members have all expired. The rationale for eliminating the board is to align strategic oversight in a more transparent, cost-effective, risk-based manner. The oversight for the Canada School of Public Service will continue to be maintained through a number of mechanisms, including OCG audits, annual management accountability framework assessments, the DPR and the RPP — the reports to Parliament — and a five-year report to Parliament. Therefore, there are a number of mechanisms.
As well, since we are an internal service provider and the public servants are our main clients, there are a number of bodies within the federal government that provide us with strategic advice, such as the Deputy Minister on Public Service Renewal Committee and the deputy minister's Public Service Management Advisory Committee. We have four different Deputy Minister Learning Advisory Committees. Also, at the working level, there are a number of mechanisms by which we get feedback on what the client learning needs are.
I can go through clause-by-clause, but very briefly. Clauses 516 to 522, in effect, eliminate the board of governors. They transfer some of the powers that the board had to the deputy minister, and they also identify the minister as being overall responsible for the direction of the school.
Clause 516 removes the definition of the board. Clause 517 identifies the minister as responsible for and having the overall direction for the school. Clause 518 removes a number of very technical sections related to the board, its composition and its membership.
Clause 519 essentially talks about the appointment of the president deputy minister of the school. Clause 520 removes the requirement for the board to have bylaws. Clause 521 transfers the powers that were in the board to the president to allow the deputy minister to set fees with the approval of Treasury Board, because we are a cost-recovered organization.
Clause 522 relates to reporting, but the requirements remain the same. The change there is that the president deputy minister becomes responsible for the reporting rather than the board.
The Chair: Just refresh our memories, how is the reporting done under the board of governors? Is that to a minister?
Ms. Brenning: The reporting was through the board, so the board did a five-year report. We recently tabled one about six months ago. It was done by the board.
The Chair: How long has this school been in existence?
Ms. Brenning: This school was formed in 2004. It was an amalgamation of three different institutes. The Canada School of Public Service Act essentially was a lot of parts of the former CCMD, the Canadian Centre for Management Development. That act had in it the requirement for the board, so the board carried over into the Canada School of Public Service Act.
The Chair: There was a piece of legislation back about that time called the public service reorganization act, which this committee handled at that time. Is that before your time?
Ms. Brenning: I would have been in the government then, but it would have been before I was at the Canada School of Public Service.
Senator L. Smith: Ms. Brenning, can you summarize the rationale and the vehicle that will move forward in terms of replacing the process in existence now? What will it be and how will you ensure you maintain the quality of what was done previous to the changes?
Ms. Brenning: Essentially, the rationale was that we do have all of our business that comes from internal to government. Our clients are public servants. For us, it is really important to get our advice directly from our client base, which includes deputy ministers as well as public servants. That is really the rationale. We were looking to see how we can best get strategic advice. Also, we are looking to reduce overhead costs. That was part of the rationale as well. To service a board, it took a fair bit of internal effort to be able to service the needs of the board.
The vehicle that we will use, we will be using existing deputy minister committees, as the ones I outlined, for strategic advice. There are a number of mechanisms that we have, oversight mechanisms, that will continue to exist, and external audits. There are a number of also strategic oversight mechanisms.
We have a number of feelers out there on what the public service needs are. We have a number of groups also at the level below deputy ministers, so we are close, working with HR council, which is an internal-to-government organization. We have ADM learning advisory committees.
At each level we have a number of mechanisms by which we get client advice. As well, we have a robust evaluation where each public servant who takes a course does an evaluation, and as a result of that we analyze the input and see where the public service is saying how we are doing and what the needs are.
Senator L. Smith: You talk about streamlining. One of the questions that have been asked throughout our inquiry has been the cost savings and how many people, what your annual savings will be. Could you outline who they would be?
Senator Ringuette has been thorough in asking that question, but it is a logical one: how many people, what departments, if you could give us an idea. If you do not have that information, send it to the clerk. If you have a big number, a macro number, that would be helpful.
Ms. Brenning: We estimated it was about 500,000. Before a meeting it is a major departmental effort. It involved the executive committee time. The executive committee had to review all the materials. Each of the deputy ministers who sat on our board had to be briefed. Each of the external members had to be briefed. When we took on a new member, we did a full orientation, so we always developed an orientation package.
There was also an honorarium of $250,000 paid to board members. There is the basic memo writing that supports the board, so the GIC appointment process requires a fairly lengthy behind-the-scenes process. There were a number of costs.
The costs were distributed throughout the department because it was not specifically an individual, but it was a whole-of-school effort. We estimated the bits and pieces of the people in order to be able to come up with the streamlining number.
Senator L. Smith: Bits and pieces of people or number of people?
Ms. Brenning: It really was parts of people's jobs. It was not discrete.
Senator L. Smith: Are there any headcount reductions?
Ms. Brenning: Not associated with this proposal. It is the reduction related directly to the costs of running it: the travel, hospitality costs that we paid.
Senator L. Smith: You are saying $500,000 a year; is that right?
Ms. Brenning: Approximately.
The Chair: I will ask the other two senators I have on my list to put their questions on the record. We are running down on time and other committees are starting.
If you can answer quickly, great, if you cannot, if you could provide us the answers in writing it would be appreciated.
Senator Callbeck: I have a brief question. On the president of the school, was the president selected or is the president now selected by that board of governors which will be abolished? If that is the case, who will select the president?
Ms. Brenning: The president is selected the same way other deputy ministers are selected, through the PCO process. In effect, the president was always appointed through the PCO process, never through the board of governors.
Senator Ringuette: You have the honour of my precious questions here, if you could provide the answers to the clerk. How many employees in your organization got a notice letter of layoff, by province and by classification? How many were EX? How many were 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 department for program management and program delivery, i.e., salary, expenses, bonuses, et cetera?
Could you provide all of that as a percentage of a total, including the fact that you are the provider of training for the public service?
I want to know how many training programs are contracted out, how many are done in-house. The ones that are contracted out, how is the contract tendered? Thank you.
Ms. Brenning: We will provide that answer in writing.
The Chair: Thank you very much, each of you, for being here and helping us with this section. Now you can go home and you do not have to come back this evening.
Colleagues, the good news is that section 36 is the Bank Act, and we will not be doing that one. That is going to the Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee. When we gather tonight for our meeting, we will start at section 37. We will see you all at that time, if not before.
(The committee adjourned.)