Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 11 - Evidence - May 7, 2014
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 7, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 6:54 p.m. to examine the subject-matter of Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014, and other measures (topics: Division 21, Clauses 308 to 310; Division 23, Clause 313; Division 26, Clauses 369 and 370; and Division 29, Clauses 376 to 482).
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. We are expecting Minister Oliver to appear, but there are still votes in the House of Commons. We have a huge agenda for tonight and perhaps tomorrow, if we don't finish tonight. I thought that we would pick up where we left off yesterday, if that is acceptable. We were dealing with Division 21 of Part 6. We had just begun with a little bit of an overview. Perhaps we might start with a brief overview of clauses 308 and 309 at page 201 of the English version of the bill. From Treasury Board Secretariat, we have Manon Brassard, Assistant Deputy Minister; Dennis Duggan, Senior Policy Analyst; and Dora Benbaruk, Director and General Counsel. We're only missing Mr. Don Graham. Ms. Brassard, would you be able to give us a bit of an overview on just what the government is trying to achieve with these clauses?
Manon Brassard, Assistant Deputy Minister, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Yes, and then I'll turn to Dennis, with your permission, to pick up where he left off.
Basically we're trying to bring forth transition provisions to clarify the dispute resolution method to determine where a bargaining unit is in the process of negotiating the former round, the one that has ended, and then bring the bargaining unit into conciliation globally so everyone gets equal treatment. These transition provisions allow for the new designation process to happen at the same time so we're ready for the next round of negotiations.
The transition provisions attempt to clarify, because the policy intent was there at BIA and that has not changed. They are technical amendments to clarify and tweak the language here and there. On this, if you wish, we could go through in more detail per section and Dennis will do that and pick up where we left off yesterday.
The Chair: Mr. Duggan, welcome back.
Dennis Duggan, Senior Policy Analyst, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you. As I was saying yesterday, clauses 309(1) and (2) are pretty much identical in their intent. The additional language in both refers to making both subsections 338(4) and 338(5) of the act subject to subsections 338(6) and (7). Specifically, 338(4) deals with bargaining units for which an arbitration board has been established prior to commencement day, which is December 12, 2013, coming into force, if you will. It provides that the old Public Service Labour Relations Act continues to apply until the arbitration award is rendered. The proposed amendments make this provision subject to the process for designation under subsections 338(6) and 338(7).
Subsection 338(5), the other section I noted that becomes subject to 338(6) and (7), is a mirror of that except this particular section deals with conciliation as opposed to an arbitration board.
Clause 309(3) deals with changes to subsection 338(6). In this case, the difference in terms of the language is that subsection 338(6), the change in the language, says ``Despite subsections (4) and (5);'' Those are the two sections we just spoke about. This provision provides for the process by which employers designate essential services for bargaining units for which no essential service agreement had been concluded prior to commencement day. The proposed amendments clarify that even for bargaining units for which the old rules apply — and, in this case, that's what happens where a board or a public interest commission has been established — the old rules continue to apply. In this case, the designation process is still applicable in preparation for the 2014 round as referred to it, which is the subsequent round of bargaining that will occur once the previous round that started prior to commencement day begins.
Proposed subsection (4) of clause 309 refers to subsection 338(7) and makes amendments to it. Again, there is a difference in the language. It adds ``Despite subsections (4) and (5).'' This is a modified version of the previous section for bargaining units who had a concluded essential services agreement as of commencement day.
The changes to these first four sections ensure that the processes for essential services agreement under the old legislation can take place concurrent with the identification of essential service provisions under the new legislation so that essential services designations can be in place for the round of bargaining to come.
It should be noted that where there is a degree of ambiguity in the current language, it was not absolutely clear on what happened to essential services agreements arrived at after commencement day of the legislation. That would be possible because the round of bargaining commenced prior to December 12.
Prior to commencement, if an ESA is in place, it becomes the essential services designation for the next round of bargaining. However, that only applies to essential services agreements that were in place on December 12. That is, if the parties concluded one subsequent to that and there was an issue around what was the intent there and a possible ambiguity. This change ensures that the process still exists for those still in bargaining with no essential services agreement and for those who arrive at an essential services agreement after commencement of the legislation.
Proposed subsection (5) of clause 309 adds a new provision, 338(7.1). That basically ensures there is no change in the dispute resolution process method for the bargaining unit still in the process of concluding a 2011 or 2012 round of bargaining for which a Public Interest Commission or an arbitration board had been established prior to commencement day. The change is designed to ensure that it is clear that the parties who have not finished bargaining are still subject to the regime previously in place. In short, if an impasse is reached and the parties are on conciliation and a strike can occur, then there must be an essential services agreement in place before strike action can take place.
Proposed subsection (6) amends subsection 338(9) of the act and it provides ``Despite subsections (4) and (5)'' — and that's the specific language but there are other amendments to it — to clarify that positions identified in an ESA are designated positions. That is, they are deemed to be designated under the new public service labour relation act process even if an arbitration board or a public interest commission has been established prior to commencement day. It reinforces once more that, if an ESA was reached prior to commencement day, the positions identified within the essential services agreement are designations under the new legislative regime going forward.
Proposed subsection (6) is new and it adds proposed subsection 338(10) for greater certainty. It is added to provide greater certainty that ESAs do not continue ad infinitum. Thus, they cease to be in force upon commencement day or upon the signing date of a collective agreement once one is concluded, as the case may be, at which time those designations in force as of the commencement day are deemed to be designations under the new process. The provision makes it clear that ESAs cease to exist after commencement day.
As previously mentioned, the designations identified under it will become the designations going forward. At that point, the ESA is redundant. That is the entirety of clause 309.
The Chair: That's very helpful, Mr. Duggan. I have some senators who would like to ask for some clarification. The first senator I'll call on is Senator Buth from Manitoba.
Senator Buth: With these changes, which rules will apply to situations where, first, an ESA is in place; second, when an ESA is being negotiated; and, third, when an ESA is not in place? I think these clauses deal with that; is that correct?
Mr. Duggan: They do.
Senator Buth: This is a very technical section, Mr. Duggan.
Mr. Duggan: I do understand. That's where subsections (4) and (5) of the current act deal with it. If an arbitration board or a conciliation board has been established, then the old PSLRA rules with respect to bargaining and the essential services agreements, of course, are in place and are applicable.
If a bargaining agent has an essential service in place signed prior to December 12 and they're in bargaining, then that essential services agreement continues to apply throughout the course of the negotiation for that particular collective agreement for that particular round.
Also, the designations that were determined under that essential services agreement are deemed going forward for the new round of bargaining to be the designations and are deemed to be determined in accordance with the new rules.
Where there is no essential services agreement in place and bargaining is continuing because the bargaining agent runs the conciliation route, then the parties have to come to an ESA for that particular round of bargaining. Concurrently, they also have to set up for the next round of bargaining once that collective agreement is concluded. In other words, the new rules with respect to designations have to apply. That is the period we refer to, namely the 12- month period from December 12, which is the commencement day, and one year hence.
Senator Buth: If they have no agreement, are they following the old rules or the new rules?
Mr. Duggan: If they have no agreement concluded at that point and then notice of bargaining began prior to that, they still have to conclude an ESA for the former round because they're under the old rules. Concurrently, they also have to look at designations going forward. That's where the new rules apply in that respect.
We're trying to get bargaining units that are in that situation from point A to point B, if you will, because it is transitional, and you find people crossing over the line. Once you've proceeded along a certain pace and you've gotten to a point where a board has been established, either a public interest commission or an arbitration board, it would be unfair to go back and try to start over. That's the reason for that. You draw the line somewhere, and that's where it was drawn. If the boards hadn't been established by the PSLRB at that point, then you switch over to the new rules, and of course you still have to come to an ESA to conclude that round.
Senator Buth: Is a year enough?
Mr. Duggan: It will be a challenge, but again you have to pick a point in time when you have to get the job done.
Senator Buth: Can you tell me how many ESAs have been concluded?
Mr. Duggan: This is a question that was asked in the previous — I don't remember.
Senator Buth: You don't remember the answer or you don't remember —
Mr. Duggan: I don't remember. Sometimes at my age, that happens. I believe the number we had was approximately six or seven, up to the point that the act came into force.
Since then, we haven't had any because as time has moved on, it has become not necessary. Agreements have been concluded and at this point in time, there are approximately three collective agreements outstanding that began prior to that.
Senator Buth: I'm thinking there were 14 that needed to be done.
Mr. Duggan: Actually, in total — and remember we're dealing with separate agencies who are also employers under the act — there are approximately 18.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: My questions have been answered, but I think I have another one. Roughly speaking, percentage-wise, will these provisions apply to many bargaining units? Most of them or just a few?
[English]
Mr. Duggan: The transitional provisions? As I said, at the time the bill was passed, there were approximately 18 in that in-between period. Currently there are about three, but that doesn't count a couple that are bargaining under the new rules, but served notice to bargain just before that. In total, when all is said and done, it will apply to all bargaining units that bargain under the PSLRA.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I imagine these provisions were included in the bill because of the legislation last year, and then the department realized the negotiations posed some problems so it established the provisions in question?
Ms. Brassard: They are not necessarily the result of problems with the bargaining process, but there was a desire to make the intention clearer for all involved. This is how it should be viewed. After the bill's passage, it was discovered that the legislation might contain some ambiguity, and it is always important not to leave any question marks, if you will. Not only is clarity important for all sides, but it also ensures the legislation as a whole can be applied consistently.
Senator Bellemare: Thank you kindly.
[English]
Senator Eaton: I want to clarify, because my fellow senators asked most of my questions. All of the public service agencies that you are deeming essential services have finished their negotiations or they're in the process; is that correct?
Mr. Duggan: The answer is both. Virtually all the collective agreements that were in the process of being negotiated prior to commencement day are complete, but we have now started a new round of bargaining.
Senator Eaton: Sorry. I'm slow. They've now accepted the fact they're an essential service?
Mr. Duggan: It's a question at this point, of course, the employer has the exclusive right to determine, and we're in the process of doing that.
Senator Eaton: You're now in the process of telling those agencies.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator L. Smith: The minister is present, so we'd like to start right now.
The Chair: Absolutely. We just finished this session now. You're finished. You can go home. But you may want to stay and hear from the minister, of course.
[Translation]
The Chair: This evening, we are continuing our study of the subject-matter of Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.
[English]
Honourable senators, this evening we're very pleased to welcome the Honourable Joe Oliver, P.C., M.P., Minister of Finance.
Minister, this is your first visit here before the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. We had a very good relationship with your predecessor and we join with you in mourning the sudden death of Mr. Flaherty.
Mr. Minister, we thank you very much for being with us tonight. We appreciate that you have a busy schedule. We can tell you that we've heard from some of the various government officials prior to your being with us, and we'd now like to call on you to talk about Bill C-31. If time allows, we'll engage in a question-and-answer period following that. You have the floor, sir.
Hon. Joe Oliver, P.C., M.P., Minister of Finance: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, honourable senators. I very much appreciate this opportunity to meet with you today to discuss Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the Economic Action Plan 2014 tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014.
[Translation]
This year's budget builds on the solid foundation our government has been laying since 2006. It represents a forward-looking plan with initiatives to create jobs, stimulate growth and support long-term prosperity. In short, this plan works and paves the way for a balanced budget in 2015.
[English]
Since we introduced the Economic Action Plan to respond to the global recession, Canada recovered more than all of the output, as well as all of the jobs lost during the recession, and in fact added 1.1 million new jobs.
The world has noticed how well Canada weathered the economic storm. Both the IMF and the OECD expect Canada to be among the strongest-growing economies in the G7 over this year and next. For the sixth year in a row, the World Economic Forum rated Canada's banking system as the world's soundest and all three major credit rating agencies — Moody's, Fitch and Standard & Poor's — have reaffirmed their top ratings for Canada.
[Translation]
That economic resilience and job growth also reflect steps taken by the government prior to the global crisis to cut taxes, bring down the debt, reduce red tape and promote free trade and innovation.
Our government understands that having a sound economic policy does not mean we can rest on our laurels, and has not wavered in its efforts to keep that momentum going. And that is why we are shaping new policies and initiatives with our top priorities in mind; we want to help match Canadians with available jobs, stimulate job creation, support families and communities, while investing in infrastructure, trade and responsible resource development.
[English]
Let me first address a few of the measures in Bill C-31 that help Canadians connect with available jobs.
Since 2006, the government recognized the importance of apprentices to Canada's economy, and to this end has made significant investments to help apprentices and the employers that hire them. While the number of apprentices completing training and obtaining certification has doubled from 2000 to 2011, apprenticeship completion rates have averaged only 50 per cent. That number is low compared to other countries and substantially lower than that of community colleges and university students. Apprentices in skilled trades face significant costs to complete technical training, including educational fees, tools and equipment, living expenses and foregone wages.
That is why the Economic Action Plan proposes to create the Canada Apprentice Loan, a loan to provide apprentices registered in their first red-seal trade with access to interest-free loans of up to $4,000 per period of technical training. This initiative will assist in completing training and encouraging more Canadians to consider a career in the trades.
At the same time, to foster job creation, today's legislation proposes to strengthen the labour market opinion process to deter employers from breaking the rules through administrative monetary penalties.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation is also about hard-working Canadians who want to pay their bills and look after their families. For example, our government has a strong record of responding to the needs of consumers in the telecom market. Since the last auction of wireless spectrum in 2008, prices have fallen almost 20 per cent and jobs in the wireless industry have increased by 25 per cent. Building on that success, we're proposing to amend the Telecommunications Act to cap wholesale domestic wireless roaming rates to prevent wireless providers from charging other companies more than they charge their own customers for mobile voice, data and text services.
To further help families, we are also announcing an increase in tax support for Canadians who adopt a child. While all parents incur costs in raising children, there are additional costs that adoptive parents face, including adoption agency and legal fees. These can be significant, especially in the case of children who are adopted from outside of Canada where costs can include travel and living expenses, and document translation fees. The bill proposes to increase the maximum amount of the Adoption Expense Tax Credit to $15,000 per child and indexed to inflation for subsequent years.
At the same time, our government is committed to ensuring that the tax system reflects the evolving nature of the health care system and the health care needs of Canadians. To this end, Bill C-31 proposes to expand the list of eligible expenses under the Medical Expense Tax Credit. The expanded list will include costs associated with service animals trained to assist individuals with severe diabetes, as well as amounts paid for the design of an eligible individualized therapy plan.
We're also proposing amendments to the Excise Tax Act to improve the application of the GST/HST to the health care sector. Our government has been clear that Canadians' health is a priority. Specifically, today's legislation proposes three changes to expand tax relief under the GST/HST for certain health-related services and medical and assistive devices to reflect the evolving nature of the health care system. The bill will expand the current GST/HST exemption for training to help individuals cope with a disorder or disability, and will exempt acupuncturists' and naturopathic doctors' professional services from HST/GST. It will also add certain eyewear to the list of GST/HST- free medical and assistive devices.
Our government also believes that reducing tobacco consumption is an important health objective. A key tool in achieving this objective is the excise duty on tobacco products. The general domestic rate of excise duty on cigarettes has not effectively changed since 2002, meaning that the real rate of excise duty has deteriorated by almost 24 per cent. Before Budget 2014, cigarettes were subject to an excise duty of $17 per carton of 200 cigarettes. Today's legislation proposes to adjust the rate of excise duty on cigarettes by roughly $4, to account for inflation since 2002.
Going forward, to ensure that tobacco tax rates retain their real value in the future, the rate will be indexed to the Consumer Price Index and automatically adjusted accordingly every five years.
[Translation]
In a nutshell, Mr. Chair, even though I mentioned only a few of the key measures contained in the bill, I believe they clearly illustrate how effective our government has been at following through on commitments to improve living conditions for all Canadians. In fact, the measures in Bill C-31 will help make Canada an even better place to live, while continuing to support our government's long-term plan for job creation, economic growth, prosperity and a balanced budget in 2015.
[English]
I now invite questions from the committee. Government officials have also joined us here today to answer any questions you may have about the bill.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I failed to introduce two officials from the Department of Finance Canada: Mr. Ernewein and Mr. Rudin. I think the record should be clarified. I apologize for not introducing you both earlier.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Welcome, gentlemen. Something that is very important to Quebec is skills training for young people. You talked about giving apprentices registered in a red-seal trade $4,000 per period of technical training. Does that apply solely to building trades? Are those being trained in information technology and design, for example, eligible to receive the loan?
Mr. Oliver: It covers a broader spectrum than just building trades. The idea is to bridge the gap between the demand for workers and the higher unemployment rate particularly among youth, but also affecting seniors, Aboriginals and people with disabilities.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: As you know, Quebec has a new government, and there had been little in the way of discussion or agreements with the province. Have you had an opportunity to speak with the new premier or your provincial counterpart to find out whether Quebec supports the measure?
Mr. Oliver: No, not yet. I wrote a letter to my counterpart indicating that I would be glad to meet with him in Montreal or Quebec City. So I cannot give you any specific information on that.
I was in Montreal two weeks ago to address the chamber of commerce. I expressed our government's desire to work side by side with Quebec to achieve our economic goals, within each of our respective domains.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: You are going to give loans of $4,000. Are you going to give everyone who applies the money, or is it limited to a certain number? How many apprentices are eligible? Can every student wanting to benefit from the program have access to the $4,000 loan? As far as I can tell, the only contribution on the federal government's part is the interest-free nature of the money.
Mr. Oliver: I am not sure whether a limit on the number of students has been set. In my opening statement, I mentioned loans of more than $4,000 per period of technical training. The government announced a contribution of $100 million to cover the loans of $4,000 per person per technical training period.
[English]
Atiq Rahman, Director, Operational Policy and Research, Employment and Social Development Canada: If I understand your question, it is how many apprentices could benefit from this initiative. Initially, it will assist a little more than 26,000 per year, but it will grow over time as well.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: And the contribution from the Government of Canada of $100 million is to pay for the interest rate because the students will still owe $4,000?
Mr. Rahman: That is right. It's a repayable loan, but it has some benefits, including being interest-free when they are in the apprenticeship program, and the legislation has provisions for regulations that could allow certain benefits for those who have financial difficulty during repayment. There could be assistance there, too.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Rahman, from Employment and Social Development Canada.
Senator L. Smith: Thank you, minister, for being with us. You didn't really talk about it in your presentation but it's a subject that most Canadians are vitally interested in, namely, the deficit reduction program. I'm wondering what the thoughts of your department are as you head towards a break-even or a slight surplus. The question has been asked: What will the government look for in terms of moving forward and handling the deficit balance issue and how to distribute or move forward with the ties to economic development?
Mr. Oliver: Of course, this is one of the key objectives — a responsible plan that controls spending that will help lead us to the balanced budget in 2015. We're forecasting some $6.4 billion in surplus plus a contingency fund of about $3 billion as well.
This is really important. Of course, it didn't just happen; we reduced direct program spending for the third year in a row, something no other government has actually done in decades. We've focused on eliminating waste to decrease the cost of government without cutting programs. So we haven't cut any transfer payments to individuals. We have not and we will not cut transfer payments to the provinces.
The deficit has been reduced by almost two thirds since 2009, and the projection this year is to go to $2.9 billion and then to the surplus that I mentioned. There are significant advantages in doing that. It positions Canada as an attractive place to invest and to expand business. It instills confidence in consumers and it helps keep interest rates low. It means tax dollars can be available for social programs, not interest payments. It strengthens the country's ability to respond to longer term challenges such as population aging, which is predictable, and global economic shocks, which are not.
When I was in Washington a few weeks ago attending the G7, G20, IMF and World Bank meetings, it was clear, firstly, that people from around the world admire and, in some cases, envy Canada for its economic success and also there are some problems. We talk about that, that there is a fragility. In the eurozone, growth is low and inflation is worryingly low. What we don't to see, and I'm not predicting this, but it's a bit of a risk, is a lost decade or two, as with Japan.
Because there has been a search for yield, a lot of investors have moved to developing countries, and now there are risks of volatility in those markets.
Then, of course, we have a new geopolitical risk, which is the situation in Ukraine.
A balanced budget strengthens the country to withstand these potential shocks, and it also allows for further tax cuts. What I've said is we're not going to launch into a reckless spending spree now that we're looking at a surplus. It was too difficult a task to get to where we are going to be, and that's not going to happen.
But we are going to be looking at tax relief for hardworking Canadians, and we believe that is a good thing not only for the individuals but it's also a good thing for the economy because ultimately it leads to economic growth.
At the end of the day, balanced budgets aren't an end in themselves. The end, of course, is people and enhancing the quality of life for Canadians.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you very much. Thank you, minister and officials for coming this evening.
Mr. Oliver: Thank you, senator. I recall your being on the board of one of the companies I was involved in a number of years ago. We will not say how many.
Senator Callbeck: That's right. That was a long time ago. Certainly, I congratulate you on your new position.
Mr. Oliver: Thank you.
Senator Callbeck: As the new Minister of Finance, I'd like to get your thoughts on omnibus bills. As you know, in the past number of years, we've had bills that contain hundreds and hundreds of pages that cover many items, a lot of them not even in the budget, but we find them in an omnibus bill. I'm wondering, as a new minister, will you make a commitment to bring in budget implementation bills that only contain items that are in the budget? Or can we expect more of the same?
Mr. Oliver: Well, this is a broad question. I can't comment what will be in the next bill. That's not quite a year away. We want to do things for Canadians. We want to get things done. There has been some focus on this issue, but the fact is, there has been a debate going on in Parliament, in the house, in Question Period. There are quite a variety of committees that have had an opportunity to meet and discuss these issues. There is a public debate outside the Ottawa bubble, and the opposition parties have had every opportunity in the world to make known their views.
The vast majority of items are, in fact, in the budget. We believe they're going to achieve what we feel is important to achieve for Canadians.
Senator Callbeck: I wanted to ask about the IGA agreement, the FATCA. We had officials here. I don't know whether it was last week or when. I understood from them that the deal wasn't really what Canada wanted, but it was the best deal that we could get; is that a fair assessment?
Mr. Oliver: Well, it was certainly the best deal we could get. Of course, it flows from an American taxation principle, which is they tax people on their global income irrespective of where they live. If they had the same approach that we did, there wouldn't be a FATCA. It's something that came in, I think, in 2010, and what they're trying to do is find out what income Americans living outside the country or having accounts outside the country might be earning so that they can make sure they're not avoiding U.S. taxes. That's the reality. We don't determine U.S. legislation.
What we were confronted with was a choice: Enter into an agreement with them like other countries around the world are doing or don't. We didn't have to, but if we didn't, the result would have been that American citizens living in this country would have been subjected to a 30 per cent withholding tax on U.S. source payments for not complying with FATCA.
In other words, this does not result in any additional tax on Americans living in Canada, and it doesn't result in people in this country having to report directly to the IRS. It was the best deal that we could have negotiated, and had we not, these people subject to it would have been in worse shape than they are now, of that there is no doubt.
Senator Buth: Welcome, minister. It's good to have you here.
Mr. Oliver: Thank you.
Senator Buth: You made some comments related to the global financial situation in terms of Japan and Ukraine. Perhaps if you have any further comments on the meetings that you've just returned from and your primary concerns in terms of global issues related to keeping Canada financially sound?
Mr. Oliver: Well, I did make a few remarks in that regard. One thing I should add in respect to the late Jim Flaherty, my predecessor, I heard the terrible news when I was in Washington. I was meeting with my Korean counterpart. In the next day or so, people from around the world kept coming up to me and expressing their condolences and talking personally how they had very much enjoyed meeting with him, how they had become friends, how they appreciated his strong presentation of the views that he felt were important for the global economy and advancing Canadian interests. It was clear that it wasn't only Canadians who felt that way.
What I would say is we have a global market where most of the developed countries don't have the same fiscal situation as Canada. In fact, our net debt to GDP is one half the G7 average. The United States has a far higher debt to their economy, and they're going to have to take some tough decisions at some point or see that situation deteriorate further.
We benefit from a strong U.S. economy. In fact, it's happening right now, but these are issues that cannot be wished away. If we were in that position, we might have to confront draconian cuts to social welfare if we didn't want to see it deteriorate further. So we have that advantage, and it can be a competitive advantage, but we have to make sure we remain strong.
I pointed to the slow growth in Europe. If you take a longer view, to 2035, there are a number of international economic bodies that forecast that 92 per cent of the economic growth globally will come from non-OECD countries, mainly Asia but to some extent the Middle East, Latin America. That means that we're going to have to reorient our trade to where the growth is going to be. In the meantime, of course, Europe is the biggest single market in the world with half a billion people. We want to take advantage of that now, but we've got to orient ourselves. We've just arrived at this agreement in principle with Europe, but we're also involved in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and are looking to enhance our relationship with China.
Canada is a great trading nation. Sixty per cent of our GDP comes from exports, but it's a very competitive world out there. With this uncertainty, we must remain strong and can't be vulnerable. Inevitably, the business cycle isn't over, and there will be recessions. We're not expecting anything near what we just experienced, because that was the worst since the Great Depression. Hopefully that will not happen for some considerable period of time, but there will be cyclicality, and we have to remain strong. During an economic recovery is not the time to get into deficit; that's the time to pay down debt, arrange the tax system so it's good for Canadians and good for economic growth.
One of the things you get is the example — no one's perfect. We can learn from our mistakes and learn from our successes, and you can learn from the mistakes and successes of other countries. Some of the mistakes they've made are just spending beyond their means. It's really that simple.
Senator Buth: Thank you. I was going to ask you about trade and the importance of trade. You've already covered that. Those are my questions. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: Welcome, minister. Before beginning our round of questions, I planned to ask you about the very topic of apprentices. I spent 35 years running an industrial mechanics business. Past programs have targeted people on social assistance and unemployed workers to help them improve their circumstances. Under those programs, a grant, not a loan, went directly to the employer.
I would imagine that, prior to developing this loan program for apprentices, you had a look at previous programs to see how they had performed. Successful initiatives are duplicated, and those that do not work are dropped.
I am curious as to how much it would cost to administer this type of program, where an apprentice has to meet with departmental representatives or those in charge, and for them to receive a $4,000 loan, their progress has to be monitored and the money has to be repaid afterwards. When you compare that with the student loan situation in our province, you see, unfortunately, that a large number of debt-ridden young people are choosing to declare bankruptcy. To combat that phenomenon, the Quebec government passed legislation preventing student loan debt from being written off.
Would this $4,000 loan from the government, despite being interest-free, be written off if a student were to declare bankruptcy or would it have to be repaid nevertheless? I am not sure you will have that answer handy.
Mr. Oliver: I cannot say exactly, but I cannot imagine the government forcing people into bankruptcy because they did not repay their loans.
[English]
Mr. Oliver: Perhaps you could tell me, hopefully not, that we will.
The Chair: We're running down on time so if you could give a succinct answer, it would be appreciated.
Mr. Rahman: With respect to bankruptcy, the proposed legislation has a provision that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act will be amended. The same rules that apply to other student loans will also apply to apprentice loans, which is that they cannot be discharged if a bankruptcy is declared.
Mr. Oliver: Sorry, I didn't understand. They cannot be what?
Mr. Rahman: They cannot be discharged. The loan will survive if bankruptcy is declared within seven years after —
[Translation]
Mr. Oliver: I thought you were asking whether it would push people into bankruptcy. Was that your question?
[English]
I was saying that I didn't think that debt by itself could trigger the bankruptcy. That's the question I thought I was being asked. What is the answer to that?
Mr. Rahman: Yes —
Mr. Oliver: It survives the bankruptcy, but that wasn't the question.
Mr. Rahman: Yes. This debt in itself will not trigger bankruptcy.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: I hope the program is tremendously successful, but I would think the cost of running it is through the roof. Conversely, programs in the past directed the funding right to the employer who would hire either someone who was receiving social assistance or a person who did not have a job to get them back to work. As I see it, a program of that nature would surely cost less to run than the one being proposed by the government.
[English]
Mr. Oliver: Do you have any comments on the cost of the administration?
Mr. Rahman: This loan program, which would disburse a little over $100 million a year will cost $15 million per year because it's repayable. It will still cost the government $15 million per year but not the $100 million.
Mr. Oliver: The $15 million includes the loan. I think the question related to the administration of the program.
Mr. Rahman: Yes. The administration is estimated to cost about $2 million to set up and then very little over time.
[Translation]
Mr. Oliver: So it will not be that expensive to administer.
[English]
Senator Eaton: Minister, it's lovely to see you. Speaking about exports and trade, what if we don't get Keystone in the next year and Northern Gateway will take another year perhaps? We haven't decided, have we?
Mr. Oliver: I can't comment on that because we're supposed to come to a decision by June 17, I believe. Until we do —
Senator Eaton: I don't want you to comment on that. I'm just saying that if our pipelines all stall and take much longer, will it affect our potential surplus figure in your next budget?
Mr. Oliver: I'm not sure how much it would affect the coming year. Keystone is shovel-ready but it still takes time to build. I don't think it would necessarily have a huge impact this current year.
Senator Eaton: It wouldn't have a negative impact.
Mr. Oliver: It's negative obviously if it doesn't go ahead but it wouldn't necessarily impact. Over time, clearly, there is an opportunity cost to this. I think last year the Canadian economy lost $15 billion representing the price differential between Brent, which is the international price, and the price at which the oil was sold in the United States because of bottlenecks in the U.S. Midwest, in particular Cushing, Oklahoma. It's going to continue, depending on that price differential, to cost the Canadian economy billions of dollars. It's very regrettable that the U.S. did not approve the project, which has been vetted in Canada and the United States by our regulators, which would create tens of thousands of jobs on both sides of the border. These jobs would be created immediately.
Senator Eaton: Would the west-east pipeline be in effect?
Mr. Oliver: That's going to take a few years, so that will not impact in the next few years. We're hopeful, of course.
The Chair: I'm glad you asked that question.
Mr. Oliver: We're certainly hopeful that these will go ahead.
Senator Eaton: You should be more indulgent towards me.
The Chair: I guess I've been told.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: In the Throne Speech, the government announced that it would introduce balanced budget legislation applicable during normal economic times. Do you think we will be discussing or studying that legislation next year?
Mr. Oliver: I cannot say whether it will happen or not, but obviously, it is an interesting idea. I cannot say anything more on the subject.
Senator Bellemare: I was just trying to get a sense of where you stood on the matter given that some provinces have passed similar legislation, including Quebec, and the outcome has not always been positive. So I am aware that a number of precautions have to be taken under that kind of approach.
Mr. Oliver: Yes, because it is necessary to define the framework if we go that route.
[English]
The Chair: Minister, on behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, I'd like to thank you very much for being here. We deal with a lot of bills that originate in your department, so we may well have the opportunity to meet again; and we look forward to that.
Mr. Oliver: Thank you very much for having me. Thank you, senators.
The Chair: We will now proceed with Division 23 of Bill C-31. This appears at page 206 of the bill in the English version.
I'm pleased to welcome back, from Finance Canada, Mr. Jeremy Rudin, Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Sector, Policy Branch. He's accompanied by Nicolas Marion, Chief Capital Markets and International Affairs. You will know that this particular section deals with, in part, the proposed Canadian securities legislation.
Mr. Rudin, could you help us with Division 23 and what the policy purpose is for this?
Jeremy Rudin, Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance Canada: Yes, I'd be happy to, senator.
[Translation]
I would like to begin by telling you that, in September 2013, the governments of British Columbia, Ontario and Canada reached a joint agreement to establish a cooperative capital markets regulatory system.
[English]
What the government is proposing in Bill C-31 would further the Government of Canada's commitment to support this cooperative capital markets regulatory system project by facilitating the participation of provinces and territories in that system.
To understand what's being proposed here, by way of background, let me remind you that the Budget Implementation Act of 2009 set aside up to $150 million that the Government of Canada could use to compensate provinces and territories for costs related to transitioning to a new securities regulatory regime. No payments have been made under that provision to this date.
What's proposed here, quite simply, is to allow Parliament to change that total of $150 million, so the aggregate amount that would be available, to make that change through an appropriation act should the government wish to recommend an increase in the amount in the future.
The Chair: That's interesting. I was going to ask you to go over that again.
Mr. Rudin: I'd be glad to, senator.
The Chair: No, I'm just kidding, but it did seem to come to an abrupt end. I think probably through the questions we'll have a chance to understand a bit more about this. There was a court decision in relation to the earlier legislation that said it was unconstitutional. Is that part of this?
Mr. Rudin: The government sought the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada about the constitutionality of a draft piece of legislation. The Supreme Court voiced its opinion that the legislation, as drafted, was not within the constitutional powers of Parliament. They then went on in the opinion to set out that the court was of the view that there was a role for the Government of Canada and for Parliament — in areas related to securities regulation particularly, although by no means exclusively — in matters of legitimate national interest, including the stability of the financial system. The court saw the possibility of a cooperative system whereby the federal government and participating provinces and territories would decide to essentially pool their respective jurisdiction and delegate the administration of that jurisdiction to a single joint body.
That is the current project. That's described in somewhat more detail in the agreement in principle between Ontario, British Columbia and the Government of Canada. That was reached in September 2013.
In support of that, the Government of Canada stands ready to, under certain circumstances, make payments to provinces that decide to come into that. As specified in the agreement in principle, it notes that this is particularly for provinces that would lose net revenue by joining the cooperative system. All that is being proposed here is to add to the mechanisms that can be used for changing the total amount that can be used for that purpose.
The Chair: It was $150 million.
Mr. Rudin: It was and remains $150 million. All that is being proposed here is to allow that amount to be changed through an appropriation act rather than a further amendment to the implementation bill of 2009.
The Chair: Thank you. We deal with the appropriation bills as well as the budget implementation bill, so we can follow this one either way.
Senator L. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Rudin, for being here.
We talked about how Ontario and B.C. have an agreement that was struck in 2009, if I understand correctly. Who is up next in terms of the negotiations?
Mr. Rudin: The agreement reached last year, 2013, was Ontario, British Columbia and the Government of Canada.
Senator L. Smith: Sorry, 2013.
Mr. Rudin: The confusion is we're amending the Budget Implementation Act of 2009, senator. That's why I keep mentioning 2009. I'm sorry for the confusion.
The Governments of British Columbia, Ontario and Canada have an agreement in principle to establish this cooperative system. These three governments have jointly invited all other provinces and territories to join. They are in active discussions with any jurisdiction that is interested. At this point there is no formal commitment, but there have certainly been expressions of interest: some of them recently in the media.
Senator L. Smith: Can you be specific as to some of the expressions of interest? We know that Quebec has some anxiety about getting involved in this particular relationship.
Mr. Rudin: I certainly can't speak for other governments, but I did read in the media, I believe just today, an expression of interest from the Government of Saskatchewan.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you for being here tonight.
You say that B.C. and Ontario, there was an agreement made in 2013 but no money has been paid out. Have the amounts been determined for B.C. and Ontario?
Mr. Rudin: In the agreement in principle, the Government of Canada sets out, in principle, its willingness to do two things. First of all, to provide compensation to provinces that would lose net revenue by joining this system. Neither Ontario nor British Columbia, as a matter of course, gains net revenue from securities regulation. They have securities commissions that collect fees for securities purposes and use those to fund the operations of the commission. Those provinces are not ones that gain net revenue. Under this provision, no funds have been expended.
Senator Callbeck: So B.C. and Ontario will not to lose any revenue. Will the others?
Mr. Rudin: Many, but not all, other provinces and territories gain net revenue through securities regulation and would stand to lose if they were to join the cooperative regulator, which is planned to be self-funded.
Senator Callbeck: What's the formula? If a province is going to lose, let's say Prince Edward Island, a million dollars a year, how much are they likely to get under the formula?
Mr. Rudin: That formula has yet to be determined. It needs to be worked out with provinces as they make up their minds to join the project.
Senator Callbeck: It has to be worked out with provinces. It will be one formula for everybody, will it?
Mr. Rudin: The agreement in principle doesn't specify exactly how this will be done, but I think there's great interest in having an approach that is fair and equitable.
Senator Eaton: What we're basically talking about is a national stock market, really?
Mr. Rudin: What we're talking about is the system of regulation for capital markets, which includes not only stocks but also bonds and derivatives — so a variety of financial instruments. It is not the specific markets or exchanges, like the Toronto Stock Exchange, but, rather, the system for the regulator.
Senator Eaton: So Quebec could keep its derivatives, Ontario its market and B.C. its penny stocks, basically, and then you would have one security agent managing everybody.
Mr. Rudin: If every province and territory decided to join, then, indeed, there would be a single securities regulator for the entire country. That said, the Governments of British Columbia, Ontario and Canada are prepared to move ahead with as many provinces and territories as wish to join.
Senator Eaton: Aren't there huge advantages for outside investors? If you're looking at a country with six different regulators, isn't that kind of off-putting? Wouldn't we be more attractive to investors?
Mr. Rudin: Very much so. That's certainly the view of the Government of Canada. The minister has expressed this eloquently. I would just add that there are actually 13 securities regulators in Canada at the moment.
Senator Eaton: Very confusing. Anyway, thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I might be able to help you a little since I used to work in the field. An approach known as a passport system is used. When a company wants to go public, it applies to the province in which it is located.
[English]
Senator Eaton, I tried to explain to you how it works with 13.
Senator Eaton: I understood perfectly. Thank you very much, senator.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Thank you. I don't contribute to this place. Quebec does not support this because we have a good system. If you want Ontario and Toronto to benefit, just try again.
Senator Mockler: That's not what she said.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I tried to explain that the system is working well. There are not 13; there's only 1.
Senator Eaton: We all have different opinions.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: You don't know what you're talking about. I'm from Quebec, and I know what my province wants.
The Chair: Mr. Rudin, as I understand this, there was an initial thought that the federal government had legal jurisdiction to pass a law for a national securities regulator. That was sent to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court suggested maybe not so, but there is a role. There's a suggestion here that this is really looking for agreement between each of the provinces. Is that what's happening now? Rather than the federal government saying, ``This is going to be the law,'' the federal government is attempting to achieve the result through having various provinces sign on?
Mr. Rudin: That's the case in a nutshell. I would just add that, even in the previous plan, which wasn't, in the Supreme Court's view, constitutional, the plan of the government was always to have only the regime in place where provinces had decided to opt in. But in this case, in the cooperative regime, that's the only mechanism that's available.
The Chair: Yes. Senator Hervieux-Payette was trying to point out that the Province of Quebec strongly objected to the federal government passing unilateral legislation to create a national securities regulator.
Mr. Rudin: Indeed.
The Chair: Thank you. I have no other questions. Therefore, it's for me to thank each of you. Mr. Marion, Mr. Rudin, thank you very much for helping us with this particular Division 23.
Colleagues, we'll now move on to the next division, which is Division 26, on the same page, 259. This is entitled ``Reduction of Governor-in-Council Appointments.'' We've seen that previously. There were a number that were reduced in previous legislation, and this is another one. It looks fairly straightforward. I will ask Mr. Philip Morrison if you could explain to us what this division is all about.
Philip Morrison, Senior Analyst, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Industry Canada: Thank you. Good evening.
Division 26 amends the Trade-marks Act to repeal the power to appoint a registrar of trademarks and provides that the registrar of trade-marks is the commissioner of patents. Basically, it reduces one GIC appointment. It's in follow- up to the 2010 Speech from the Throne that called for the reduction of unnecessary appointments to commissions, Crown corporations.
Section 369 and 370 basically amend the definition of ``registrar'' and indicate that the registrar is the person appointed as commissioner of patents.
The Chair: Previously, there would have been two appointments, but, for a good number of years now, it's been the same individual.
Mr. Morrison: Over 50 years; that's right.
The Chair: It's just somebody with two hats, and now you're giving him one hat.
Mr. Morrison: That's right. He's also the CEO of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office and the other two positions.
The Chair: We had the commissioner of patents and the registrar of trade-marks and the CEO of the office, Mr. Laporte, on Parliament Hill last evening.
Mr. Morrison: Sylvain Laporte.
Senator Buth: I just wondered about the financial implications.
Mr. Morrison: None whatsoever. None on the operation or costs.
The Chair: Going back a few years, I do recall when they were two different individuals.
Mr. Morrison: Yes.
The Chair: But that was a good number of years ago now.
Mr. Morrison: Since at least 1966 it has been under one.
The Chair: That's what I mean — a good number of years.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you very much. Did I understand you to say that this was announced in the Speech from the Throne in 2010, four years ago?
Mr. Morrison: Yes.
Senator Callbeck: So why is it just happening now?
Mr. Morrison: We had started the process, but it was an administrative issue and not as high on the priority list. Now we're back at it.
Senator Callbeck: Four years. Thank you.
The Chair: Any other questions or clarifications, honourable colleagues? Seeing none, it's for me to thank you, Mr. Morrison. Your being here is very much appreciated.
The Chair: That's Division 26; we'll now going to Division 29, on page 263, entitled Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act.
We're moving along very nicely. We have two representatives from Justice Canada, France Pégeot, Special Adviser to the Deputy Minister; and Ann Chaplin, Senior General Counsel. Thank you very much for being here.
We will be dealing with clauses 376 to 482. Is that possible? That's a lot of different clauses.
We'll all just start at the beginning. Who will be the spokesperson?
France Pégeot, Special Advisor to the Deputy Minister, Justice Canada: That would be me. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. Thank you for the invitation.
I'm pleased to be here today to speak to you about the government's plan to create the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada.
The government has decided to create a new organization that will be responsible for providing corporate and other services to 11 administrative tribunals. This includes corporate services, such as human resources, finance and registry services, as well as statutory services, such as research, analysis, investigation and mediation services. In the overall context of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of government operations, the first objective behind this measure is to improve management capacity and facilitate the modernization of services offered by the tribunals.
The ATSSC, the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada, will bring together staff from those 11 small organizations and consolidate the resources into a single integrated organization which will strengthen the capacity to support the tribunals' needs. These needs have often been expressed by tribunals themselves in their various annual reports. The result will lead to improved services for Canadians, including increased access to justice.
The second objective for the creation of this new organization is to generate efficiencies which will be realized over time once the new organization is operating as a fully consolidated service provider.
[Translation]
Now, I will briefly discuss how we will go about implementing that decision.
All existing tribunal staff and resources, including regional offices, will be transferred to the new organization. A chief administrator will be appointed to head up the organization and will be responsible for managing its operations.
[English]
The independence of the tribunal's decision making on adjudicative and other substantive matters will be preserved. As indicated in section 14 of the legislation, the chairperson of an administrative tribunal continues to have supervision over and direction of the work of the tribunal.
As well, while this new organization will be in the portfolio of the Department of Justice, each of the tribunals will remain in their current ministerial portfolio.
In conclusion, the objective of this organization is to allow better use of the resources and better control of the costs and to improve services that will be delivered to the tribunals. As we are working towards establishing and creating the organization, we're working very closely with the tribunal chairs and the staff to ensure that the organization meets their needs.
The Chair: Did you tell us how many tribunals will be covered by this?
Ms. Pégeot: Eleven.
The Chair: I thought you had, but I thought it might be 14.
Ms. Pégeot: I did not mention the list, but I'm happy to do it, if you wish.
The Chair: If you have a list you could provide to us, because I think it was a year ago that various tribunals were moved together, consolidated.
Ms. Pégeot: There were two, so I could explain that. The list of the included tribunals and boards is the following: Canada Agricultural Review Tribunal, Canada Industrial Relations Board, Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Canadian International Trade Tribunal, Competition Tribunal, Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal, Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board.
I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to, but last year's budget was bringing together the Public Service Staffing Tribunal and the Public Service Labour Relations Board.
The Chair: That's what I'm thinking about.
Ms. Pégeot: Once the coming-into-force of that decision happens, this new board will be serviced by this new organization that we are creating. They're still in the process of putting it together. They are the Specific Claims Tribunal and the Social Security Tribunal, which is again another budget measure that brought a lot of tribunals together dealing with pension and Employment Insurance, for example.
The Chair: I'm looking at page 362, and it has been pointed out to me by the Library of Parliament that there are 10 on the list. Is there one that has gotten left off or will it be added later on?
Ms. Pégeot: No. This will be in the consequential amendment.
Ann Chaplin, Senior General Counsel, Justice Canada: The consequential amendments, which are technically called ``coordinating amendments'' that have to do with the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board, are found at clause 481 of the bill.
The Chair: That's almost at the end.
Ms. Chaplin: One of the changes listed in that provision is that the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board are added to the schedule of the Administrative Tribunals Support Services Act.
The difference at schedule 6 of the bill is that those are the existing tribunals which will be added immediately on the enactment of Bill C-31. The Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board will be added to the schedule when that act comes into force, which it has not yet.
The Chair: It's been passed by Parliament.
Ms. Chaplin: It has been passed by Parliament, but it has not yet come into force because the process of putting the two boards together is still continuing.
The Chair: That's helpful. Thank you.
Ms. Pégeot: You referred to lots of the clauses of the legislation. It's because essentially in order to create this new organization, legislation pertaining to the tribunal had to be changed to reflect this new organization. That's why.
The Chair: I see there are quite a few clauses that are indicated ``transition clauses'' here. This is a new act that we're creating, and it has 18 clauses in it, going up to page 266; and then after that, it's all transition and adjusting other acts to reflect this new act. That's the way I read it.
Ms. Pégeot: Exactly. That's it.
[Translation]
Senator L. Smith: Thank you for being with us this evening.
[English]
Could you give the committee just a little overview, if you would, of creating a centralized, coordinated service to oversee 11 tribunals? We are talking about how many people? What type of budget? How is this tied to Service Canada, which is a big group that was set up to provide IT services for many of the departments within the government? If you could give us a little overview of the scope, I think it would help us in our understanding.
Ms. Pégeot: Sure, absolutely. The 11 tribunals together have about 400, 450 employees and represents a budget of roughly $60 million. The largest organization is about 100 employees, and the smallest has three or four; quite a few have 10 to 20. I would say the largest of the organizations is a fairly small organization.
By putting it together with all these organizations it will help to make sure they have a stronger basis from which to be able to provide services and to modernize practices. For example, if they want to implement a new system to move toward electronic hearings or electronic filings, when you're a small organization you don't necessarily have that kind of capacity.
Senator L. Smith: Will they house all the tribunals in the same physical location for efficiency?
Ms. Pégeot: At some point, yes. Some tribunals are currently located in the same building, but depending on the leases and when they expire, we need to look into the financial consequences of that. We are working with Public Works and Government Services Canada, which is responsible for accommodations in the public service.
Senator L. Smith: When you hear of service and efficiencies, usually the next question asked is: Will there be downsizing or some form of economic benefit to realign these particular tribunals?
Ms. Pégeot: At some point, efficiencies are to be realized. There has not been a target identified at this point, because lots of the work we are doing currently, which is looking at analyzing the organization and looking at how many people would be providing human resources services now, for example, and how many we will need in the future, is still to be done.
At some point, there should be efficiencies, in terms of people, but it could be as well in terms of hearing rooms. Many of these tribunals or boards have their own hearing rooms. What we hope at some point is to be able to optimize the use of those facilities, which would generate efficiencies.
Senator L. Smith: How long has this been in place in terms of this plan to do this rationalization or this regrouping under one head?
Ms. Pégeot: It started when we started to develop the legislation a few months ago.
Senator L. Smith: When you put them all together, there are 450 employees and $60 million of costs; right? That's the present situation?
Ms. Pégeot: Yes, that's the current situation.
Senator L. Smith: It's too early to forecast what the future situation could look like; is that correct?
Ms. Pégeot: Yes.
Senator L. Smith: But you hope to have economy of scale?
Ms. Pégeot: That is for sure part of this initiative.
Senator Buth: You commented that some of the tribunals have indicated that they need additional services in order to support this. Did you consult with all of the tribunals?
Ms. Pégeot: Yes, we consulted and are currently working with all of the tribunals as we set up the organizations. We have a working group composed of all the chairs of the tribunals or their designated person. Actually, some of the tribunal staff are working with the small team that I lead in order to implement so that we understand their needs, and so they can be part of the implementation plan.
Senator Buth: Which minister will this act be under?
Ms. Pégeot: This new organization will be in the portfolio of the Minister of Justice, but each of the tribunals will remain in their current portfolio. For example, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal is in the portfolio of the Minister of Finance, so this will remain. The same thing, with the Social Security Tribunal. That tribunal is within the portfolio of the Minister of Employment and Social Development and will remain as such.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you. Are all of these tribunals supportive of setting up this new service?
Ms. Pégeot: I'd like to think so. I think all of the tribunals certainly want to make sure that they will continue to have access to the services they need in order to deliver on their mandates. They're working very closely with us. I think that question may be better answered by the chairs themselves, but I can certainly tell you that they've all been very collaborative with us since the outset, and we're working extremely closely.
For example, I have a weekly conference call with all the chairs where we report on the progress we've made and together we identify the types of actions that need to be taken in the implementation of this decision.
Senator Callbeck: So there are 11 tribunals. How many will not be involved in this new service?
Ms. Pégeot: I don't know, senator. I know that there are more tribunals than those 11, but I don't know how many there are.
Senator Callbeck: How was it decided which tribunals would be involved here?
Ms. Pégeot: That was the decision made by government. They were looking at some of the sizes, I suspect, taking smaller tribunals and putting them together. All of those tribunals are also located in Ottawa, probably to facilitate that.
Senator Callbeck: You said the largest was 300.
Ms. Pégeot: No, about 100.
Senator Callbeck: Okay, and there are some tribunals here that have three or four people?
Ms. Pégeot: One is actually very small, three or four people. Some of them have 20 to 25, so the size varies.
Senator Callbeck: Are all the large ones involved here, or are there other tribunals involved?
Ms. Pégeot: Some tribunals are there. I'm not a specialist on all of these tribunals, but I think, for example, the Refugee Board is larger than that and is not part of that list.
The Chair: Veterans Affairs?
Ms. Pégeot: Veterans Affairs is based in P.E.I., so it was not included.
Senator Callbeck: Okay.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Along the same line of questioning as my colleagues, I would like to know whether the tribunals covered by the new organization had a choice in the matter. Could they have said no?
Ms. Pégeot: No. Administrative tribunals are part of the executive branch of government and, in that sense, the government decides how they are structured.
Senator Chaput: You talked about bringing together human resources, administrative support and research capacity. You also mentioned regional offices. What does that mean? How many are there?
Ms. Pégeot: One tribunal has regional offices, the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Existing regional offices will remain where they are. They will simply be transferred to the support service, like the other employees.
Senator Chaput: The regional offices will stay as they are. Are they all in the same place, or are they scattered across the country?
Ms. Pégeot: They are located in various capital cities. I do not have the exact list of cities with me. For the time being, only one of the tribunals has regional offices.
Senator Chaput: And they are going to stay right where they are, correct?
Ms. Pégeot: Exactly. In fact, in some cases, they may be able to provide assistance to the other tribunals. Those are aspects that will need to be worked out as the organization is set up. If other tribunals need those kinds of services, office space, for instance, they would have access to it.
Senator Chaput: What I gather is that they are not all grouped under a single department either.
Ms. Pégeot: No. Every tribunal is currently overseen by a specific department, and those same departments will continue to do that.
Senator Chaput: Will it be harder for them to function more efficiently given that they all fall under different departments, as opposed to a single authority like the Department of Justice? Will that not make it harder to operate efficiently?
Ms. Pégeot: The mandates of the tribunals are quite varied. The international trade tribunal, for example, deals with trade agreements, dumping and other such matters. Another tribunal considers issues related to cultural property, assessing the value of cultural property belonging to public institutions for income tax purposes. Yet another tribunal examines issues pertaining to public service labour relations. So as you can see, they have very different mandates.
Senator Chaput: I read that some had concerns regarding the enforcement of two acts in particular: the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. Will it now be harder to enforce them?
Ms. Pégeot: It will be exactly the same. The new organization will indeed have to satisfy the obligations under both acts, like any other department.
Senator Chaput: There will not be any exemptions in that regard?
Ms. Pégeot: The organization will be subject to both pieces of legislation, as are all other public sector organizations.
Senator Bellemare: All of my questions have been answered.
The Chair: That is a fairly regular occurrence.
[English]
Well, that exhausts my list. Can you believe that? We have 10 minutes to go in our designated time. This is very good.
Thank you very much, Ms. Pégeot and Ms. Chaplin. Thank you for being here and explaining this. This will be an interesting initiative.
Ms. Pégeot: Absolutely.
The Chair: We will see how it goes and I'm sure you will be staying close to the implementation of this.
Ms. Pégeot: I look forward to it.
The Chair: Maybe we will have you back in due course to tell us how it's going.
Ms. Pégeot: That would be my pleasure.
The Chair: And ours. That concludes the formal part of this evening. I know we've all worked very hard on all of this. There is some edginess and we all understand that's part of the hard work you've been going through. I want to thank you all very much for getting this part of the job done.
We have only one other hearing planned for Bill C-31 on the portions that we've done. That can be next Tuesday morning. I can tell you who will be here: the Privacy Commissioner, who we couldn't get today; PSAC; the Canadian Bar Association; and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. We thought we would put the last three together and have one panel with the Privacy Commissioner.
That would be all of the work, unless we hear from you that you must hear on some other point. That's all the work we intended to do on Bill C-31 until we start receiving the reports filed in the Senate Chamber on the other committees. Then we will invite the chair and the deputy chair of each of the committees to come and explain their report.
Senator Bellemare: I have a question on the process.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: Are we going to do a clause-by-clause study of every division in the bill?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Bellemare: Even the ones we did not examine?
The Chair: Precisely. The committee is responsible for the full content of Bill C-31. That is why we have to hear from the chairs and deputy chairs of all the committees; they will be here to help us understand what their divisions cover.
[English]
That's just to edit another — it would be nice if each of us could do a clause-by-clause for the ones we've studied, but that's not the way the Senate Chamber has set it up at this particular time.
We have other things happening, and we want to give as much time next week to the Library of Parliament to prepare their reports for us.
Senator L. Smith: We would like to have this young man have his hair stand on edge. We're a little disappointed tonight.
The Chair: Well, he knew the minister was coming.
There is one other major thing happening: There will be the Supplementary Estimates (A), which we anticipate we will receive. Indications are that it's not going to be very long, but whenever you hear that, it's always very long.
Before we adjourn, I'd like to thank Heather Hickling, Kathleen Manion and Angèle St-Jean from Finance Canada for coordinating the appearance of all of those witnesses and officials on the various bills and parts. Thank you to each and all of you for the fine work you did in making our work flow smoothly. We will see you again for Budget Implementation Bill No. 2 after the summer break.
Colleagues, unless there are some questions, this meeting is concluded.
(The committee adjourned.)