Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 22 - Evidence - November 27, 2014
OTTAWA, November 27, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 2:33 p.m. to study the subject matter of Bill C- 43, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, this afternoon, we will continue our study on the subject matter of Bill C-43, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.
[English]
Honourable senators will know that there were six committees in addition to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance that were asked to review the subject matter of Bill C-43.
We in the Finance Committee will be required to have clause-by-clause consideration of all aspects of the bill once it is received in the Senate. For that reason, we felt it prudent to understand those portions of the bill that we did not study ourselves but that were studied by our colleagues.
We've asked the chair and deputy chair of each of the committees that conducted the study portions of the bill to appear before us and to help us with their aspects of the bill.
We'll start with the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. From that particular committee, we're very pleased to welcome the Honourable Senator Dawson, who is the chair. Senator Dawson's deputy chair is not here at present. They will be discussing the subject matter of those elements contained in Part 4, Divisions 2, 6, 10, 11, 16 and 21, which begins at page 316 of the bill. By now each of us should have a copy of the report that was filed. It's the eighth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.
I will pass the microphone over to Senator Dawson at this time.
[Translation]
Hon. Dennis Dawson, Chair, Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications: Thank you. Senator Housakos is presiding in the Senate chamber right now. He will join me as soon as possible.
The Chair: Does he have no objection to us proceeding without him?
[English]
Senator Dawson: He has total confidence in his chair to do it in his absence.
The committee was tasked to review the elements contained in Part 4, Divisions 2, 6, 10, 11, 16 and 21, which begins at page 316 of Bill C-43. Division 2 of the bill basically makes it an order to prohibit proposed development expansion or operational changes that are likely to affect aviation safety that are not in the general interests of the public. The ministerial order would exempt from the general requirements to examine, register and publish legislation contained in the Statutory Instruments Act.
The most important part of the bill that we had to deal with, I'll be addressing it at the end of the bill, is clause 144 that would permit Governor-in-Council to make regulations respecting the prohibition to develop a new aerodrome or to expand or change the operations of an existing aerodrome and that the consultations that must be carried out by those who wish to build a new aerodrome, to expand the infrastructure or to change the operations of an existing aerodrome. That's the only subject on which we had major presentations in front of the committee.
Division 6 and Part 4 of Bill C-43 would amend the Radiocommunication Act, which governs manufacture and use of radio communications apparatus in Canada, such as radio transmitters, receivers, cellar telephones and devices.
Division 10 of Bill C-43 would amend the Broadcasting Act by making it an offence for a broadcasting undertaking to charge its subscribers a fee for providing a paper bill.
Division 11 would amend the Telecommunications Act with the aim of providing more competition in the telecommunications industry and giving consumers lower prices, uniform services from whoever provides telecommunications, and more security with respect to telecommunications apparatus.
Division 16 of Part 4 would amend the Canada Marine Act to provide for the establishment of Canada port authorities and sets out their powers and governance.
Division 21 of Part 4 of Bill C-43 would amend the provisions of Division 8 of the Economic Action Plan in order to ensure they apply to any corporation resulting from the amalgamation of two or more of the following four federal Crown Corporations: The Federal Bridge Corporation Limited, the St. Mary's River Bridge Company, the Seaway International Bridge Corporation, and the Blue Water Bridge Authority.
The committee held three meetings, heard from 14 witnesses and received nine briefs. The vast majority of the committee's time dealt with Division 2 of Part 4, which deals with aerodromes. An aerodrome is any area of land, water, including frozen surfaces, or other supporting surface used that is designed, prepared and equipped, for the arrival, departure, movement and service of aircraft, and includes any associated buildings, installations and equipment. Canada has more than 306 certified aerodromes and more than 2,000 registered aerodromes.
Two major issues were raised that the committee wants to bring to your attention: first, the fact that some witnesses in the evidence submitted expressed concerns about the minimal consultations that were done before the introduction of the legislative changes; and second, the committee noted that the process should permit municipalities to express their concerns to the minister about the development, expansion and change of aerodromes.
There is also a list of witnesses in the report. The rest of the committee documents are available for the purposes of this committee. That would be my report, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you for that overview. I wonder if you could tell us bit more. The aerodrome aspect is Part 2, and I think we understand generally what the issues were. You did point out lack of consultation. Are you convinced that there is a requirement for consultation before regulations are generated?
Senator Dawson: From what we understand from the witnesses who came from the department, the minister asked to have this power because there were two or three major cases in Canada, over the last two or three years, one of them being in my backyard in a little village called Neuville, in the riding of Portneuf. Another one is in Burlington and another is in B.C., where the minister's only answer to requests from people concerned about the aerodrome was, ''I have no power.'' Basically, this legislation will deny him the right to say that he has no power. The powers he has are designed for the other existing aerodromes; but he does not have power for aerodromes being built because he has no power to say you're not allowed to do it or you're allowed to do it under certain constraints. He will now have that power.
The Chair: Does an aerodrome include the airstrip used for takeoffs and landings?
Senator Dawson: Yes, plus the needed buildings around the landing strip.
The Chair: Prior to this bill, the minister had no control over it?
Senator Dawson: If you want to build an aerodrome in your backyard, you can still do it but the minister will now have the power to constrain how and when you can build it.
The Chair: Will that include maintenance and periodic inspection by the minister that wasn't there before?
Senator Dawson: Well, there are regulations concerning aerodromes. The problem has been new aerodromes and changes to aerodromes, which were not covered by the law, from what I understand according to the witnesses.
The Chair: The next item is Division 6 of Part 4, which you indicated deals with radio communications. It's over 11 pages that we'll be required to do a clause-by-clause consideration. Can you tell us a little more specifically what is in those 11 pages? It starts at page 330 of the bill.
Senator Dawson: To be frank, we did not go in-depth on that part of the study because no witnesses came forward to comment, make requirements or ask for changes. In general, I know more about the aerodrome part of it because that's what we dealt with when we heard from witnesses. The rest was dealt with by technical presentations from departments. I'm sorry, on those questions I can't answer.
The Chair: Is that the same with respect to Divisions 10, 11, 16 and 21? You went over them rather quickly and just said they will bring about changes to the Canada Marine Act. Could we know what the changes are?
Senator Dawson: Questions were asked of officials. In the case of the boards, they were asked whether this was done with any cooperation or opposition from the existing boards. They said that this was done in total cooperation with port authorities from Vancouver to Halifax, big and small.
The Chair: You didn't have any port authorities in to testify.
Senator Dawson: No port authorities asked to be heard in support of or against it.
The Chair: Were they invited?
Senator Dawson: They were invited. We reached out to witnesses who came before the house committee, but there did not seem to be any resistance to those changes.
The Chair: Honourable senators, I have nobody on my list. Do you feel comfortable doing clause-by-clause consideration after what you've heard on this, or do you wish to have a discussion on this later as to whether we need other witnesses?
Senator L. Smith: You did a good job, chair, in terms of going through what we had to go through. There seemed to be a focus on Division 2 of Part 4. Senator Dawson seemed to address that appropriately. It seems that for what they were asked to do, they did their job.
Senator Dawson: Thank you, senator.
The Chair: Seeing no other senators who wish to be engaged in discussions on this, Senator Dawson, on behalf of our committee, thank you very much for helping us out on this.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: Thank you, Senator Day. It is always a pleasure.
[English]
The Chair: Before you go, do you anticipate having any debate on this in the chamber?
Senator Dawson: No. There might be some comments from senators who raised the issues of consultation; but it would be more on the general part of the bill, not on these particular items.
The Chair: Generally, if asked, your committee would be prepared to recommend all of these changes?
Senator Dawson: We recommend that the bill be accepted without amendment.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll suspend for two minutes to allow for another committee to come forward.
Colleagues, we'll now proceed with the second committee for this afternoon. With appreciation to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, we're very pleased to welcome Senator Runciman, Chair, and Senator Baker, Deputy Chair. We will be discussing the subject matter of the elements contained in Part 4, Division 4, which can be found at page 329. Senator Runciman, thank you for being here.
Hon. Bob Runciman, Chair, Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs: It's good to be here. Following my statement, Senator Baker will make a few brief comments.
This is a relatively simple proposed change to the Criminal Code. As it stands, section 207(1)(b) authorizes a provincially regulated charitable lottery scheme but prohibits the use of a computer in its operation. The amendment would authorize a provincially licensed charitable or religious raffle, including a 50-50 draw, to operate the sales, winner selection and prize distribution on or through a computer.
The decision on whether to grant a licence and on what terms rests with the province or with the territory. Our committee heard this morning from Hal Pruden, Legal Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Justice Canada; Donald Bourgeois, General Counsel and Director of Legal Services for the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario; and Jonathan Bodden, Vice President, Corporate and Community Relations, Ottawa Senators Foundation.
A number of sporting organizations in provinces other than Ontario use electronic devices for 50-50 draws. They are doing it under section 207(1)(a) of the code, which allows the province or territory to run the operation on behalf of the charity. This proposed change will allow the province or territory to license the charity to use the electronic devices.
Both the Ottawa Senators Foundation and the Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment are conducting a pilot project with lottery officials in Ontario using electronic devices to sell and manage 50-50 draws at Senators', Maple Leafs' and Raptors' games. To date, the evidence is clear, according to Mr. Bodden and according to the experience in other provinces, that using electronic devices to sell 50-50 tickets results in a significant increase in revenue.
During the first 10 home games for the Senators this season, they've seen a 37 per cent increase in gross ticket sales per game for their 50-50 draws. The electronic device results in a more efficient sales process than putting tickets in a drum. It enhances the integrity of the system and ultimately allows the foundation to provide more money for social, recreational and youth programs.
Mr. Bourgeois expressed one concern I should note. He questioned whether the proposed wording of clause 171 ''. . . the use of a computer for the sale of a ticket, selection of a winner or the distribution of a prize. . .'' would cover the administrative process around the purchase of tickets. His concern was that it wouldn't.
It's worth noting that the Minister of Justice consulted with all provinces and territories last summer on this proposed change and received replies from 9 of 10 provinces all supporting the proposed change. The one province that did not respond was Mr. Bourgeois' own Province of Ontario. Following the wise counsel of Senator Baker, we recalled Mr. Pruden of Justice Canada to address the Ontario concern. He indicated that Justice believes the current wording is broad enough to cover all aspects, including the administration and the purchase of tickets. He emphasized that the court interpret criminal law broadly to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused.
I should also mention that Senator Joyal, one of the most astute legal minds in the Senate, made the point that the wording ''. . . sale of a ticket, selection of a winner or the distribution of a prize. . .'' would cover the entire process.
The eighteenth report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which deals with this subject matter, was adopted unanimously by the committee.
The Chair: Before we go to Senator Baker, to let honourable senators know, we're checking into the reason for the bell and we'll let you know as soon as we have some information.
Hon. George Baker, P.C., Deputy Chair, Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As the chair pointed out, the only point of contention at the committee hearing was whether or not the words ''for the sale of a ticket'' would include things like administration or the purchase process and so on.
If it didn't, according to the witness we heard representing the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, it would actually result in limiting what is already in existence rather than allowing it to take place. That was the main, I could say, argument we had. The presenter was presenting a very restricted view on the words ''sale of a ticket.''
Our object in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee is to make sure that if this goes before a judge, that the judge can look back to the committee and see the evidence as to what the intent of the government was. That's why we recalled the Department of Justice representative to tell us what the intention of the government was. The intention of the government was that this wording would include all of these matters that legal counsel for the gaming commission claim perhaps it would not cover. That was the major discussion.
Just one final point. I recall that many years ago, when this present system we have in the Criminal Code was brought in by Prime Minister Mulroney, he did it upon the request of all the provinces. The minister at the time who brought this in was John Crosbie. So I am aware, in 1984, of the details of the arrangement that was made. The arrangement was that all of the provinces would agree to any changes that were made in the Criminal Code regarding these sections.
That is why, as the chair pointed out, the chair pursued the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario representative, their legal counsel, as to any reason why the Province of Ontario had not responded to the consultation. His testimony was that to date they have not but perhaps they will. That's the only concluding point.
All it does is allow for the use of computers, because the entire section of the code makes gambling illegal only with these exceptions. Now the exception is brought in that they can use a computer for all aspects of betting.
The Chair: Thank you. Colleagues, I'm told that the bell is a 30-minute bell, so there is lots of time and we can go upstairs and vote. It's the same issue we voted on yesterday with respect to Bill S-7, the ''barbaric'' bill. It's to go to committee. The vote is at 3:17, I'm told.
Are there any questions with respect to either of our witnesses? Does everybody understand the legislation generally? We can take comfort from the fact that we have a very thorough and capable committee. You work hard on behalf of the Senate and we rely on your advice and guidance in relation to this.
Senator Boisvenu: I sit on that committee.
Senator Runciman: Thank you for those kind remarks, Mr. Chair. My only other comment is that having this gentleman on the committee — he's been sitting on it for I don't know how many years — he can recall things like the John Crosbie intervention. He's an invaluable asset to all of us.
The Chair: I'm sure those watching on television know all about John Crosbie and his colleague here from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator L. Smith: Just as a point for some of our members, in professional sports in Canada very often charities would come to organizations such as the CFL, various CFL teams, asking to be able to participate from a community perspective of doing 50-50s. The trouble with the 50-50s was that it was all manually done at the time. This dates up to recent times, within the last two to three years.
The problem for our franchise was that you were sending confused messaging out to your fans when you tried to extract a certain price from them to purchase a ticket to go to the game itself.
With these organizations that weren't necessarily as well organized but had very good intentions, it created a bit of an administrative burden. I think the rules of having an automated capability certainly enhanced, from the charity's perspective, their ability to build opportunity within the community.
It was really an issue. We discussed this as far back as when I was commissioner of the league amongst the owners of the league. It's really not that big a deal but it is, from public perception, something that was important when you have 25 or 30,000 people in a stadium and you had people going around saying ''tickets, tickets, 50-50.'' This sounds to be a good change that will be put in.
The Chair: Thank you for that, Senator Smith.
Senator Runciman, Senator Baker, is this just the first step towards more computer lotteries and gambling?
Senator Runciman: There is a bill on the Order Paper.
The Chair: I understand that. Is this a step in that direction saying ''not to worry, this looks okay''?
Senator Runciman: We'll have to do a head count.
The Chair: That's not before us today.
Senator Runciman: No.
Senator Baker: No.
The Chair: On behalf of our committee, we thank you for being here.
Those, in fact, are the two committees we intend to hear from this afternoon. Our next meeting will be next Tuesday afternoon at 2:15. Regretfully, we could not get this room, so we will be at room 356-S, upstairs, at 2:15. We will be dealing with the final three committees: Energy, Social and Banking. Then we will have gone through all of the reports. Then it will be a matter of dealing with our report.
When was it that we told everybody they would likely have that report? Next Tuesday afternoon. Please read that so that Wednesday night we'll be ready to spend the time going through the report.
Any major changes that you feel have to be made, if you could send those in before the meeting they can be worked on and it makes it go more smoothly. Anything further?
This meeting is concluded. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.).