Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 12 - Evidence - May 14, 2014
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 14, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day, at 6:46 p.m., to consider 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 (Part 6, Division 29, Clauses 376-482).
Senator Larry W. Smith (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Good evening, honourable senators. This evening we will be continuing our consideration 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 will recall that yesterday the committee heard testimony from the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation with respect to Part 6, Division 29 of Bill C-31, entitled Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act.
We have already received a technical briefing on this division of the bill, but we have invited officials from Justice Canada to appear once again to answer any further questions senators may have with respect to Part 6, Division 29.
We welcome Laurie Wright, Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Law Sector; Ann Chaplin, Senior General Counsel; and France Pégeot, Special Advisor to the Deputy Minister. We appreciate all of you being here. We have provided you with transcripts from yesterday's meeting. Effectively, if we could frame this, I think it's important, because we've had witnesses who have come in through the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation who have given us feedback on the proposed laws. We would ask you to hopefully give us your points of view so we can hear both sides of the argument.
[Translation]
I propose that we begin with questions from senators in order to get the discussion going.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Were any financial assessments made that justified merging these organizations under one department? Will Canadian taxpayers benefit from this financially? Will they believe that having a Financial Administration Act makes sense?
There must be a reason why these tribunals are being grouped together — agricultural review, industrial relations, imports, human rights, et cetera. To my mind, these are not necessarily compatible organizations.
Explain why these organizations are being merged and what the financial benefits of this are.
France Pégeot, Special Advisor the Deputy Minister, Justice Canada: The purpose of this initiative is to strengthen our capacity to provide services to administrative tribunals. All these tribunals are very small organizations. The largest has 100 people and the smallest has three to four people. Each one is an organization in itself. Therefore, in some cases it can be quite difficult for them to comply with various government management priorities, and it can also be difficult to, for example, modernize their operations. For example, they could use new technology for their hearings rather than hold them in person. The smaller organizations do not necessarily have the means to do this.
Several of these tribunals, in their annual reports, described the limitations they face because of their size. In some cases, they have tried to create partnerships amongst themselves or with other organizations in order to minimize those limitations. That was the context for this initiative.
In terms of the potential savings, first of all they will be able to increase their organizational capacity but eventually, for example, they may also be able to share hearing rooms. Tribunals often have their own hearing rooms but they are not fully utilized so they could be sharing those resources.
As I said, the largest organization has about 100 people. One or two individuals could be responsible for financial files in Human Resources. Therefore, when there are absences, the work does not necessarily have to stop. There will be an increased capacity to specialize services but there will also be increased organizational capacity.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Does this mean that the content of each specific tribunal will not be affected; they will simply be receiving administrative support?
Ms. Pégeot: All tribunal resources will be transferred to this newly created organization. There will be one person responsible for that organization and they will have all necessary authority to manage the organization, whose purpose will be to provide the services that the tribunal needs.
First, there will probably be a consolidation of the administrative services — finance, administration, information management, human resources. Then, the integration will happen in the short term. Eventually, for example, the registry service might be considered in order to see if there are any gaps. Tribunals have access to the services of experts, such as commercial rights lawyers, art historians, labour relations experts; obviously, those individuals will continue to provide the services that are specific to their tribunals; there is no question of general practitioners providing services to any tribunal. We are not going to ask an art historian to be an economist. Therefore, all the experts will be transferred and will continue to work with the tribunals. They will continue to receive direction from the heads of the tribunals.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Which minister will be responsible for them?
Ms. Pégeot: This organization falls under the Department of Justice portfolio. It will report to the Minister of Justice. Within the Minister of Justice portfolio there is the Department of Justice, and in that case, the minister is responsible for managing and overseeing the department. In the case of other organizations in that portfolio, such as the new Administrative Tribunal Support Service of Canada — and I can give you other examples of organisations under that portfolio: the Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Tribunal, and others — the minister's role is not to provide direction or management. That responsibility falls to the head of the organization.
This organization will work, as we say in English, at arm's length from the government. The minister will table annual reports, sign requests for funding, if ever there are any, but he will not be involved in the administration of the organization.
Furthermore, under the Financial Administration Act, the organization will be located in the two sections that are not those where you find other departments, such as the Department of Justice and the Department of Agriculture and Agri-food, because they will be an organization with an arm's length portfolio.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Will this reduce wait times for hearings?
Ms. Pégeot: With access to better services the chairs will probably no longer have to focus on managing the organization and instead they will be able to strictly focus on adjudicative work. That is what we hope will eventually happen, as well as the modernization of practices.
Senator Bellemare: I read quite closely Bill Curry's articles that you probably read this morning in the Globe and Mail. He says that many people have questions about this part of Bill C-31. I believe he refers to the Canadian Bar Association as well as the individuals who have testified. He writes that the perception in some cases — for example, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal — on the part of individuals filing complaints from other countries, is that these changes could cause significant problems. People could lose confidence in these rulings and fill complaints with the World Trade Organization. Furthermore, these countries could then adopt strategies that would harm Canada's trade and be very costly to Canadians.
Given this, one wonders why this measure would be adopted. The article even says that in some cases, constitutionality might even be challenged.
So what is your reaction to this kind of article and how would you respond to those arguments?
Ms. Pégeot: We have made sure that the organization does not contravene Canada's international trade obligations. The trade agreements in question are not prescriptive in terms of the kind of administrative structure required for hearing the kinds of cases that the Canadian International Trade Tribunal hears.
It is not prescriptive. Essentially there has to be a certain distance between the various parties putting their cases forward. For example, if the tribunal is hearing, among other cases, a public contract case, then it cannot be managed by the Minister of Public Works nor can it report to the minister.
That is the kind of distance that is required. The tribunal reports to the Minister of Finance. There is no specific requirement for the type of administrative structure that supports it. Therefore, there is no problem in terms of our international trade obligations.
Senator Bellemare: Who do the tribunals report to now?
Ms. Pégeot: It varies.
Senator Bellemare: Do they report to one department or are they completely independent?
Ms. Pégeot: I was speaking earlier about the concept of portfolio agencies. Tribunals are independent. Any agency belonging to the government executive must have a minister who can speak on its behalf in Parliament in order to table annual reports and make requests for funding. In this case, for example, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal belongs to the Minister of Finance's portfolio, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal falls under the Minister of Justice, and the Canadian Agricultural Review Tribunal falls under the Minister of Agriculture.
Senator Bellemare: Under the new organization, who will appoint the judges of the administrative tribunals?
Ms. Pégeot: All the tribunal heads are appointed by the Governor-in-Council and that will continue to be the case.
Senator Bellemare: There will be no changes in that regard?
Ms. Pégeot: No. The new structure has absolutely nothing to do with the appointment of heads and members.
Senator Bellemare: The article said that some provisions might be challenged on constitutional grounds. I do not remember exactly what it was referring to. Have you heard anything about that?
Ms. Pégeot: No.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: We had the Canadian Bar Association here yesterday, and it's fair to say they would like to see this division removed completely from this budget implementation bill. At least, they'd like to see the Canadian International Trade Tribunal out.
I want to quote something they said and get your comments on it:
The proposed structure of the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada is an entity that reports to the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice is also the minister responsible for the Department of Justice. This arrangement may lead to bias, an apprehension of bias and conflicts of interest. How will Canada's international trading partners view the Canadian International Trade Tribunal's administrative support staff when they are reportable to the same minister as the lawyers who bring cases in customs areas, in anti-dumping enforcement action, and against exporters the very same lawyers who defend government procurement bid challenges filed by foreign bidders on government contracts?
Are they raising a legitimate concern here?
Ms. Pégeot: No, actually, senator. This is not accurate. The lawyers who will be working for the Administrative Tribunal Support Service of Canada will not be Department of Justice lawyers. They will have their own lawyers, and they will not be part of the Department of Justice.
Senator Callbeck: So those lawyers who are working for the Canadian International Trade Tribunal aren't Justice lawyers? What about the other tribunals?
Ms. Pégeot: Same thing.
Senator Callbeck: In your eyes, then, there's no concern here at all?
Ms. Pégeot: No, because they will not be Department of Justice lawyers. Therefore, there is no perception of or actual real conflict of interest there.
Ann Chaplin, Senior General Counsel, Justice Canada: It goes back to the answers that were given to some of these other questions, as well. To the extent that the concern is that, somehow these people report to the Minister of Justice in the same way that Justice lawyers do. As Ms. Pégeot was saying earlier, there isn't going to be a reporting relationship between the ATSSC and the Minister of Justice. The relationship will be one that is at arm's length.
So it will be quite different from the relationship that the Minister of Justice has with the Department of Justice. There will be no way for Department of Justice lawyers to influence anything to do with the support of the CITT through the ATSSC.
Ms. Pégeot: Just like, for example, the lawyers who are now with Justice lawyers and would be in the Department of Finance are not influencing the CITT lawyers, although the CITT is part of the Finance portfolio.
Senator Callbeck: How is your relationship going to change with the tribunals once we have this amalgamated support system? Will it change at all?
Ms. Pégeot: By ``relationship,'' you mean?
Senator Callbeck: With the tribunals.
Ms. Pégeot: The staff who will be in this new organization will be providing services to the tribunal. They, particularly the experts, will be providing the same kinds of services that they are now. They will be receiving their directions on cases from the chair or the members of the tribunals, so they will be working closely with them and have open access to them.
They will be employees of the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada.
Senator Callbeck: In other words, the only thing that will change is that the employees will have a new employer?
Ms. Pégeot: That's right. Most of those employees are part of the public service, so they will continue to be part of the core public service. The employer will remain the Treasury Board for most of them.
The Deputy Chair: I have a supplementary to Senator Callbeck: In the write-up from the Canadian Bar Association, when they talked of expertise of the tribunals and timely decisions, it says:
The CBA sections fear that the specialized expertise developed in particular tribunals will be lost in the merged entity.
I think that was a question that was discussed, because on each of the pages, there's a common theme: There's no institutional dependency and autonomy from the government, access to justice, independence of tribunals, potential conflicts of interest, expertise of the tribunals, et cetera.
It's important that we have a sense from you people to explain to us whether there will be a change, and what happens to this expertise.
Ms. Pégeot: First, the employees working currently for the tribunals will be transferred to the organization. The same people who are currently providing services and advice, and who do their work for the chairs and the members of the tribunal, will continue to do so, and they will be transferred.
We recognize that there are kind of three groups of people who work for the tribunals. You have what I call the corporate services, which is finance, admin, human resources, and all the people who provide the ``back office.'' There's a second group of people who provide registry services. And then there's a third group of people who provide more expert services, whether they are the trade lawyers, the economists, the art historians or the labour relations people who would do some mediation work. These people will continue to work and provide services to the tribunals.
We understand that there is a need for experts there, and nobody could be a generalist. It would be impossible for an art historian to suddenly provide advice to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, for example, and vice versa. So this is clearly understood.
It's also understood that, in some cases, you need a lot of training before you would be able to have the level of competency. This will continue, and there will be a dedicated group of experts working with the tribunal members and the chairs.
There will certainly be an integration of the corporate services, whether it be finance, human resources or IM/IT specialists, they can suddenly have a strong capacity by working together and providing the services necessary.
On the registry, once the chief administrator is appointed, he or she can do the necessary analysis and see where it makes sense and where it's desirable to have some form of integration for what needs to be separate for the tribunals, but that will be done over time. With respect to the experts, they will continue to exist and be there. Otherwise the chief administrator would not be doing his job. His job, as stated in the legislation, is to provide to the chairs the service they need in order to operate their tribunals. So it is essential that this kind of expertise continues to be provided.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Staff that used to work for a specific tribunal will now be transferred to the new organization and will belong to the organization's staff pool. If they continue to work for a specific tribunal, I assume that their orders will come from that tribunal, but the problem is who they are accountable to and who assesses their work?
Ms. Pégeot: A lead director will be appointed, and will be the head of the new organization. There will also be a structure under that individual.
In terms of management, this lead director will be responsible for staff. When staff are working on files for tribunals, they will receive their direction on the substance of the files from the head or the members of the tribunals.
Senator Chaput: A few witnesses told us that they did not understand how the tribunals had been chosen. Why are some tribunals part of this structure and others not?
Ms. Pégeot: The list was provided by the government. What I see the tribunals having in common is that they are all small organizations, the largest has approximately 100 employees and they are all based in Ottawa. The idea was essentially to group together several organizations that are located in the same city and to make improvements by doing that.
Senator Chaput: I thought that the tribunals were not located in Ottawa.
Ms. Pégeot: There is at least one, for Veterans Affairs, that is located in Charlottetown.
Senator Chaput: So that one is also included. . .
Ms. Pégeot: No it was not included.
Senator Chaput: So all the organizations included in this new organization are located in Ottawa?
Ms. Pégeot: Yes, all of them.
The Deputy Chair: Someone else had a question.
[English]
The ``merger poses a threat to confidentiality. Protecting sensitive information submitted by parties is a critical function of tribunal staff. The CBA Sections believe that interested parties will be reluctant to provide confidential information'' through the merged entity.
I wonder if you could comment on that, please.
Ms. Pégeot: No. With respect to the confidentiality, of course I understand this is a concern, but at the same time this is something that must continue to exist. There are current systems that exist. Initially, they will be transferred to the new organization, and it is absolutely essential that the information be kept confidential.
You heard yesterday about the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, but if you look at the legislation, it says that not only do the employees of the tribunal itself have to keep the information confidential, but any employee of the federal public service who would come into contact with that information has to maintain confidentiality.
It's inherent to the trust that people have in the system to maintain the confidentiality.
The new organization will be subject to the Access to Information legislation, but the legislation provides protection for sensitive material, such as trade or commercial information, and can be protected. So there is no issue there.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: Your words are reassuring. Why, however, are all these people so worried?
Ms. Pégeot: Unfortunately I cannot speak on their behalf. Perhaps it is from the lack of information, or perhaps they have created hypotheses that, in fact, are not —
Senator Bellemare: Were the people who appeared before this committee consulted or informed about what was coming by the departments in question? Was there an attempt to see, for example, if the bar thought this was a good idea and that there would be no problem with the merging of administrative structures?
Ms. Pégeot: After the bill was tabled, the chairperson of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal invited me to participate in a meeting of the Bench and Bar Committee made up of lawyers who work in international trade law, many of whom are members of the Canadian Bar.
I explained the legislation to them, in the same way that I am explaining it to you now, and I provided the same kinds of details. Therefore they certainly had that information then.
I do know that the Canadian Bar called me a few times in order to obtain information and it was my pleasure to give it to them.
Senator Bellemare: Were you surprised, then, to hear them when they came here?
Ms. Pégeot: Of course, all witnesses who appear before you can share their concerns; that is perfectly legitimate. However, given what I have read, there seems to be some misunderstanding about the intent and the legislation.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: Following up on that, you said you had a meeting with some members of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. Members of the Bar Association were there, and you've talked to them several times on the phone.
Have they not expressed these concerns to you?
Ms. Pégeot: In some cases they have questions, and, yes, in some cases they did express their concerns. I've provided the same answer that I provided to you.
Senator Callbeck: But that hasn't satisfied them. To me, it looks like there's a problem here.
Ms. Pégeot: I don't know what to add, senator, except what I have given you is based on our understanding of that, and this is what we have put in the legislation.
Senator Callbeck: But you knew they weren't happy, didn't you?
Ms. Pégeot: Well, I knew about the people who were in what is called a ``bar and bench,'' which is a council or committee of trade lawyers that meet once a year with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. They have expressed concerns there which I've answered. Yesterday, of course, I read the transcript of the appearance of the Canadian Bar Association who appeared before you.
Senator Callbeck: But is that the first time that you heard the Canadian Bar's problems with this legislation? Because you said they've been on the phone to you several times.
Ms. Pégeot: Well, they asked some questions, which I answered, and the concerns were expressed during the meeting I had with the CITT Bench and Bar Committee, and reading the transcript yesterday.
Senator Callbeck: So were you surprised to read the testimony from the Canadian Bar Association yesterday?
Ms. Pégeot: For me, when I read it, obviously there are some aspects of the legislation that they don't seem to have the same understanding as we do.
Senator Callbeck: So you were surprised or weren't surprised?
Ms. Pégeot: A little bit surprised, yes. Whether I'm surprised or not, I'm not sure if it's relevant to them, but obviously I thought that I had explained so that they would have understood. A lot of what they put forward is based on hypothesis that is not in the legislation.
For example, nowhere in the legislation does it say that the expert staff of the tribunal will be generalists and will provide the type of expert advice to any tribunal. This is not at all prescribed in the legislation.
A lot of what I understand is they think about some of the worst case scenarios not based on what the legislation says or the intention with respect to this organization.
The Deputy Chair: Can we move forward, senator?
Senator Callbeck: Sure.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: We had the same concerns regarding the questions put by Senator Bellemare about the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. You addressed those concerns well. We were also worried about recourse to the WTO. You also provided a good response on that issue. As for the tribunals, we do not have a complete list, but you mentioned the one for Veterans Affairs, that is located in Prince Edward Island. I have absolutely nothing against decentralization, but are there other administrative tribunals that are not located here, in Ottawa, but are in other provinces?
Ms. Pégeot: To the best of my knowledge, no; however, the initiative does not cover all of the administrative tribunals, but instead several smaller administrative tribunals.
Senator Rivard: That leads me to the following question: Why are they not all included? Are the tribunals so different from each other or are the numbers of employees too limited, because if we are doing a reform, why not include them all?
Ms. Pégeot: Those ones are all small. I know that there is one that is much bigger, the tribunal for refugees, which was excluded, but it is a rather large organization.
That is the list the government gave us, and the tribunals are all located in Ottawa. They are all small and will benefit from a better organizational capability. One of the tribunals, the National Energy Board, for example, is located in Calgary and is also a rather large organization.
Senator Rivard: How many people are there at the one in Calgary and the one is Prince Edward Island, 25, 30?
Ms. Pégeot: No they are much larger than that.
Senator Bellemare: I have a supplementary question. What does the tribunal in Prince Edward Island deal with?
Ms. Pégeot: Veterans.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: In addition to improving the performance or productivity of these organizations, will there be a reduction in staff? What will happen to the administrative personnel associated with each tribunal? Could they not simply put in 5 or 10 financial administrators? Ultimately, if I think about the various administrative positions, I wonder what is planned for these people.
Ms. Pégeot: For now, we hope that the initiative will generate some efficiencies. A budgetary target has not been set. For the time being, there is no budget reduction for this initiative. Ultimately, as the organization is put in place and the integration occurs, there will certainly be some efficiencies. In some cases, that will allow natural attrition to occur. I should have clarified, for example, that since the beginning we have been working closely with the chairs of tribunals to implement this initiative.
For example, a committee was set up and all of the tribunal chairs sit on it, if not they send a delegate. Each week, I have a teleconference with them. We have held planning meetings that have lasted all day. The implementation of this initiative is being done on an ongoing basis with input from the tribunals. Moreover, they are already starting to collaborate, in that if, for example, one tribunal loses an employee, Human Resources will not fill the position immediately and will turn to another tribunal to see if it can offer the same services. We hope that through this collaboration it will be possible to manage the transition as easily as possible for staff, but also with a view to not perturbing services provided by these organizations to Canadians. The tribunals really are part of the implementation.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Will services that are compatible with the target population be maintained? I am discriminating against myself, but will people aged 60 and over be forced to communicate with the tribunals electronically? A good portion of that population currently is unable to use those services to invoke their rights and will continue to have to use Canada Post. Do you have an idea of the percentages involved, because the biggest users here are not young people aged 25 and under. Some of the tribunals are technical, where there is little competition and few ordinary citizens are involved. In terms of operations, have you planned for traditional means?
Ms. Pégeot: Those means currently exist. In the short term, the tribunals will continue to operate as they do now. As the tribunals are integrated they will see what best practices they can learn from each other and how they can improve various practices. Most of the tribunals currently offer different avenues to people who want to present their cases. Not all cases require a face-to-face hearing. In some cases, there can simply be an exchange of documents. In other cases, matters are dealt with by phone or email. There are also still a number of face-to-face meetings.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Is employment insurance part of this initiative? I knew about the Employment Insurance Commission in the good old days, but the names of the tribunals change regularly. I no longer know what goes on where and who does what. What are we talking about when we refer to the Social Security Tribunal?
Ms. Pégeot: The Social Security Tribunal was set up about a year and a half or two years ago. It includes the Employment Insurance Commission and pensions. Four or five tribunals were amalgamated at the time. That tribunal was created quite recently.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: There are surely quite a few people. We often hear criticism in the current context that the delays are quite embarrassing. Will the changes to your modus operandi have an increased effect on consideration of applications, and will people who are unfortunately unemployed be required to wait weeks before their claims are processed and they receive a reply and financial assistance that will enable them to meet their daily needs?
Ms. Pégeot: All of the employees who are currently part of a tribunal will be transferred to the new organization and, in the short term, will continue to operate as they do now.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: If they are not effective at present, they will not be any more effective after. I would like to hear you say that this will improve matters.
Ms. Pégeot: We hope that the initiative will improve the ability to organize and generate efficiency and, ultimately, improve access to justice for citizens.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Wright and Ms. Chaplin, did you want to add something? I want to make sure that you have a chance to contribute.
Ms. Chaplin: What I was thinking as I was listening to you is that the Social Security Tribunal does sit quite frequently in the regions. I know that, as a result, that's a question of scheduling and organizing hearing rooms in the regions. The ATSSC's resources will now include other tribunals that have regional offices, and it's possible that that will make available more space for the hearings to take place. That seems to be something that could potentially speed up the number of hearings that could be held across the country.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I guess we'll see next year when we study the supplementary estimates.
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Wright, did you have anything you wanted to add?
Laurie Wright, Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Law Sector, Justice Canada: Simply to repeat a point that Ms. Pégeot had already made. Currently, the chairs of the tribunals have management responsibilities in addition to their adjudicative responsibilities. I think one of the things that will help with the tribunals being able to concentrate on their actual work and providing that to Canadians will be that the administrative responsibilities will fall away to this other organization.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: As regards the Access to Information Act, in the past if someone wanted information from a tribunal, they would use the Access to Information Act to address the Agricultural Tribunal. Will applications under the Access to Information Act now go to the organization that will subsequently seek out the information from the tribunals?
Ms. Pégeot: All of the tribunals' files will be dealt with within the new organization, and the Access to Information Act will continue to apply to the organization. People who want to put in a request will do so through this organization, because the organization will have all of the files for the Agricultural Tribunal.
Senator Chaput: That replaces the staff necessary for responding to the requests for the 11 tribunals?
Ms. Pégeot: Yes, because all of the staff from all of the tribunals will be transferred.
Senator Chaput: In your view, will that not take longer?
Ms. Pégeot: The deadlines are set out in the Access to Information Act, so they will be respected.
Senator Rivard: Ms. Pégeot, you said earlier that the chairs of the tribunals are appointed by the Governor-in- Council. Is the same true for the other members of the tribunal, apart from the chair, like the vice-chair?
Ms. Pégeot: Yes, it is the same.
Senator Rivard: Naturally, even if they are grouped together, that will not reduce the number of members on each of the administrative tribunals, will it?
Ms. Pégeot: This initiative does not affect members and chairs in any way.
Senator Rivard: It deals strictly with administration?
Ms. Pégeot: Yes.
Senator Rivard: Thank you.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: I have a question for all three of you. One of the issues we discussed with the Canadian Bar Association was the power and the role of the chief administrator. It was their understanding that the chief administrator is like the CEO, but there are different definitions of a CEO.
Could you give us your understanding of what the role of the chief administrator is with respect to the tribunals?
Ms. Pégeot: The chief administrator will be what we call the deputy head of the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada, so he will be the accounting officer. He will be responsible for the management of the organization and for providing the services that the tribunals need.
As specified in section 9, he will have control and management of the service and all matters connected to it. This is the person who will be accountable for the management of the organization and for providing the services that are required by the tribunals.
Senator Callbeck: I have another question regarding the question that Senator Chaput just brought up with respect to an inquiry. If someone makes an inquiry, they have to go to the larger entity. Is that where the files are? Or are the files with, for example, the Canada Agricultural Review Tribunal? Where is the information?
Ms. Pégeot: The information currently resides with each tribunal, and over the years, it is hoped there will be a certain consolidation of all the offices. It depends on leases expiring because we want to make sure that we don't spend if it's not necessary.
Eventually, there will probably be a consolidation of all the tribunals in the same location. In the short term, people will continue to operate where they are operating, and over the years, there will be increased consolidation.
Senator Callbeck: As far as anybody trying to get information, you're really just adding another layer of bureaucracy here, as I see it, because you have to go to the large entity that's being set up, yet the files are still down in the tribunals.
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Chaplin, you seem to be very interested in contributing.
Ms. Chaplin: I just wanted to say that if someone wants something from a particular tribunal, they will of course be free to ask at the tribunal's offices, which is where they are. The personnel who will be supporting the tribunal and who will be handling the documents will now work for the ATSSC. So the process that would be begun by an access to information request would take exactly the same route it would now; it's just that the people handling it will be employees of the ATSSC.
The Deputy Chair: Is that a clear answer for you, senator?
Senator Callbeck: Yes, that's fine.
The Deputy Chair: In addition, as you consolidate or centralize, those files will be in a server, which is part of an IT configuration. It's not going to be any different from your ability to access that than it was before. The servers may be all together in one building, but those servers through technology will be hooked up so you have direct access to them.
We don't see any other questions and we can feel hockey sticks flinging around our heads. We're not supposed to say that in these types of meetings, but one of the points that came up, if I could make a suggestion, is I listened to the issue of concern and fear of change, which is normal for people to have when you go through a major consolidation and you go from one management structure to another, from a decentralized to a centralized structure. It may provide an opportunity for you in terms of you setting up a training and information exchange session so that you become more proactive in terms of outreach. That may be a fantastic opportunity for you to get closer and maybe address some of these objections that exist with some of your constituents. For what it's worth, I thought I would throw that out.
On behalf of the committee, thank you for your participation tonight. We appreciate it. We hope that your hockey team wins tonight, and we thank you for all you've done to help us.
(The committee adjourned.)