THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 28, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 11:31 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on the report on the Statutes Repeal Act for the year 2024.
Senator Brett Cotter(Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators.
[English]
My name is Brent Cotter. I am a senator from Saskatchewan and chair of the committee. I will invite my colleague senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, from Alberta.
Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, and I come from Treaty 6 territory.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Good morning and welcome. Patti LaBoucane-Benson, Treaty 6 territory, Alberta.
Senator Pate: Welcome to this cast of thousands. I am Kim Pate, and I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Pierre Moreau. I am representing the Laurentides senatorial division in Quebec.
Senator Audette: [Innu-aimun spoken]. Michèle Audette. I am representing Nitassinan in Quebec.
Senator Clement: Good morning, everyone. Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Just as a reminder to remember about audio feedback and to avoid it, particularly since we have a large number of people joining us, try your very best to first consult the cards on the table and keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker in front of you for that purpose. Thank you for your cooperation. It is for the benefit of the people attempting to interpret our remarks.
Honourable senators, we are meeting to examine the revised report on the Statutes Repeal Act for the year 2024, tabled in the Senate May 22, 2024, together with the list of acts or provisions of acts proposed not to be repealed pursuant to the same act, tabled in the Senate November 5, 2024. The motion adopted states that the committee must submit its report to the Senate no later than December 5 of this year. That is the middle of next week.
As a reminder, we are going through an exercise where a series of acts scheduled to be repealed will not be repealed pursuant to our discussion and the report. There is this ten year triggering mechanism, and we intend to hear and consider bills that should not be affected by that ten-year triggering mechanism for repeal. It is a bit of an unusual exercise. We did it last year in this format.
Before I introduce counsel from the Department of Justice to offer opening statements, I want to express this observation: Last year, we had, I would say, a wonderful and informative experience hearing descriptions of these various bills and the places they played in our legislative framework and the operation of our government. It was, with the greatest respect, enjoyable but time-consuming. As you will know, we have, once again, a cast of, if not thousands, hundreds joining us today to help us in our deliberations. But this time, we also have a brief written description of the purpose of these not repeal proposals. That will, I think, assist us in our deliberations. As a result, aside from opening remarks we will hear shortly, we will not invite representatives of the various departments to speak to the no repeal proposals since we have that already in writing, but I will invite you to pose questions to them. This should be a little bit more streamlined but, I hope, equally good deliberations, enabling us to reach decisions today. I hope that you are comfortable with that approach. Assuming that you are, I want to thank — and maybe I will say this again at the end — the officials who put together those little summaries. They were very helpful to us. We are also very appreciative of you being here and the time you are taking out of other lines of work to assist us in deliberations.
Having said that, I would like to welcome Carolina Mingarelli, Acting Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister, Legislative Services Branch; Josée Filion, Deputy Director and Senior Counsel, Legislative Services Sector; and Fabien Vadnais, Legal Counsel, Legislative Services Branch. They are joined, as you know, by a large group of various departmental officials who will be available to respond to questions from senators. Each of them have their own name cards, and when the time comes, we will invite a group to join us at the table or be available for that. Producing those name cards has blown the budget of the committee, but ’twas ever thus.
Let me invite you, Ms. Mingarelli or Ms. Filion, to provide opening remarks.
Carolina Mingarelli, Acting Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister, Legislative Services Branch, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you, chair and members for inviting us here today. As you mentioned, I am Carolina Mingarelli, Acting Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister of the Public Law and Legislative Services Sector at the Department of Justice.
I would like to start by recognizing that we are on the territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
I’m pleased to participate in your study of the deferrals of repeal pursuant to the Statutes Repeal Act, which I will refer to alternately as the “SRA” or “the act.”
I would like to start by providing some general information about the SRA. This act seeks to ensure the effective maintenance of the federal statute book through the regular repeal of provisions that are not in force and are no longer needed.
Section 2 of the act requires that the Minister of Justice table an annual report before both Houses of Parliament on any of the first five sitting days in each calendar year. This report lists the acts and provisions of acts of Parliament not yet in force that were enacted nine years or more before December 31 of the previous calendar year.
Under the SRA, every act or provision listed in the report will be automatically repealed on December 31 of the year in which the report is tabled unless it comes into force on or before that date or unless, during that year, either House of Parliament adopts a resolution exempting them from the repeal for the year to come.
The fourteenth annual report under the SRA was tabled on January 31, 2024, in the House of Commons and on February 7, 2024, in the Senate. A revised version of the annual report was tabled in both houses on May 22, 2024, to include section 399 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2009.
Following the tabling of the annual report, federal departments are asked to submit their recommendation and rationale for either deferral of repeal or for the repeal of the act or provisions under their minister’s responsibility. Departments are to take steps to either confirm repeal or bring into force the acts and provision listed in the annual report, especially if deferral has been sought for several years.
The final decision on whether or not to defer repeal rests with the responsible department. It does not rest with the Department of Justice unless the act or provision in play falls under the responsibility of the Minister of Justice.
[Translation]
Any of the following situations may constitute grounds for postponing the repeal of an act or provision set out in the annual report: when an external event must occur before the act and the legislative provisions can come into force or be repealed; when bills that repeal, replace or bring into force provisions not in force are in the process of being adopted; sometimes, additional time is required, for example to complete work on policies or to hold consultations; finally, when the failure to defer the repeal could have repercussions on relations between the federal government and the provinces and territories, or could affect Canada’s international relations, or relations with Indigenous peoples.
This year, the responsible ministers plan to defer the repeal of one complete act and the provisions of 24 other acts appearing in the 2024 annual report. Of the 25 items contained in the 2024 annual report, 4 appear for the first time and 21 already obtained a deferral of repeal in 2023.
It is crucial that the resolution be adopted before December 31, 2024. Otherwise, the items covered by the motion will be automatically repealed by application of the Statutes Repeal Act. This could lead to inconsistencies in federal legislation, jeopardize certain relationships with Indigenous peoples, the provinces and territories, as well as internationally, as many items require the completion of work on guidelines.
What’s more, if the items listed in the motion are repealed on December 31, the departments responsible will necessarily have to fill the resulting legislative gaps, for example, by introducing new bills, which is a time-consuming and costly exercise.
Since the motion requesting repeal deferrals for the year 2024 has been the subject of advance notice, departmental representatives attending this appearance will be able to speak to its content and answer your questions on individual items.
[English]
I understand, Mr. Chair, that you will take the committee through the items in the annual report in the order that they appear. Delegates from the departments that are responsible for these items listed in the report are in attendance today to address questions that the committee may have.
[Translation]
That said, Mr. Filion, Mr. Vadnais and I can answer any questions you may have about the annual repeal process I’ve just described.
Honourable senators, these are my opening remarks. Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. That sets the stage for our consideration of the 25 initiatives here.
If you have a question of Ms. Mingarelli or Ms. Filion about the general picture rather than any particular piece of legislation, this might be a good time to ask it. I hear none.
The proposal we have in mind is to do these in groups of five. For that reason, we will invite officials from the first five groups to be available at the table where Ms. Mingarelli and Ms. Filion are sitting. Can you identify those folks who should be joining us, or are you it?
Josée Filion, Deputy Director and Senior Counsel, Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice Canada: No, we do have a list that has been shared with the clerk. For the first item, a representative from the Privy Council Office, Sarah Stinson, will join us.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Stinson.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: We have two documents: one entitled the “Annex”, which lists the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the Minister of Finance in order, and another document listing the statutes. When you refer to the order of operation, are we in Table A-1, on recommended deferrals, or in the Annex?
[English]
The Chair: We are now dealing with the appendix or the annex?
Senator Moreau: It is Appendix A-1.
Ms. Filion: I understood that you meant to follow the order in the annual report because, as you may know, the annex only has those items for which we are seeking a deferral of repeal, whereas the annual report has the full set of items. We understood that the committee wished to go through each of those.
Referring to item one, it would be item one in the annual report. At some point, they do line up.
The Chair: Am I correct in understanding that those conform to the sequence in the appendix?
Ms. Filion: No, it’s the sequence in the annual report. If you like, I can walk you through the different items and refer you to the motion before you, if you would like, for the annex.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: We have the document “Explanation of the Recommended Deferrals Annex”, and the “Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food” is number 1.
[English]
Is this the order you want to follow?
Ms. Filion: It is the order that was in the annual report that was tabled. You should also have a copy of it, if I’m not mistaken.
Senator Simons: To clarify, that would be the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act to start.
Ms. Filion: You are correct.
The Chair: That should get all of us on the same page.
Senator Tannas: There are five items.
Ms. Filion: Correct.
Senator Tannas: To repeat, you don’t want any of them to be repealed. Correct?
Ms. Filion: No, there are four which will be repealed, and one will enter into force.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
The Chair: We know roughly where we are now. We’ll begin by inviting questions with respect to the first five items, including a question from the chair, if I may.
In relation to the Contraventions Act, I’m interested in understanding why, after nine years now, we will still don’t have an agreement with Alberta, Saskatchewan and the territories. Can you explain that? What steps will ultimately need to be taken if no agreements come together in the next short while?
Marie-Claude Gervais, Senior Counsel and Deputy Director, Legal Services Division, Programs Branch, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, and thank you for your question.
The response to the question has a lot to do with the nature and the objectives of the Contraventions Act ticketing regime.
We have, as we shared with you last year, repeatedly reached out to both jurisdictions, focusing our representations on the importance of the rule of law and ensuring better access to justice for the citizens of those two provinces. We emphasized the significant advantages of enforcing federal offences by means of tickets rather than imposing on offenders an appearance before the courts. We have failed repeatedly to convince them of the importance.
I can share with you today that our department has pretty much exhausted everything in terms of implementation options that was made available by the act in its current state. We turned to municipalities, having in mind that agreements could be signed with them. All of this is to say that we are pretty much at the end of the rope.
However, there may be additional legal options. Our department remains confident we have the ability to explore them to see if, indeed, in the near future, we could still think of providing better access to justice to those citizens. As things stand now, the federal ticketing regime is not implemented in those two jurisdictions.
The Chair: As a result of this, do you know how many hundred cases have to go to court as opposed to through the ticketing process in each of those jurisdictions each year?
Ms. Gervais: Thank you, chair, for that question.
It is indeed a very relevant matter. Unfortunately, the data we have access to is deficient. Could we make an equation between those cases attended in court by means of summons under Part 27 of the Criminal Code summary conviction procedure? If the ticketing regime were the favoured alternative, could all those cases be avoided? We do not have access to the ins and outs of those cases.
What we know, though — and this is through the evaluation cycle because, as you know, every five years, the Contraventions Act Program is scrutinized and assessed by our consultant. Within that context, interviews are performed with federal enforcement officers. For years, they have been indicating that they are left with very few options and often delivering meaningless warnings. If we were to compare with other similar jurisdictions, we know that it could, in some years, lead to a significant number of tickets potentially issued or not.
What I can share with you this morning is that last year, from what we know so far, in the participating provinces, 40,000 federal tickets were issued across the country, relying on provincial ticketing schemes.
The Chair: Are there other questions about these various provisions that are not to be repealed?
Senator Tannas: I had one. I wanted to understand more. Maybe it was covered last year — I wasn’t here — for the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, chair. That is one of the first five, is it not? No, I think it is in the next group.
The Chair: We will hold that in suspension for a short while, if we may.
Senator Arnot: I have a question on item 5 for Lisa Hitch.
Ms. Hitch, my read of the act, specifically this item, is that the provisions will backstop parental leave benefits across Canada and it will not be repealed. Is that correct?
Lisa Hitch, Senior Counsel, Family Law and Youth Justice Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice Canada: No. Apologies, senator, but this year it will be allowed to be repealed.
Senator Arnot: Okay.
Ms. Hitch: The department has now finished the review of the modernization of Employment Insurance benefits. As we mentioned last year, out of an excess of caution, the repeal had not happened in case during those consultations anything arose which would suggest that that regulatory authority was needed, and nothing did.
My colleague is here as well from the department to answer any other questions.
Senator Arnot: Does it mean that parental leave benefits are uniform across Canada?
Ms. Hitch: That means that parental leave benefits are uniform across Canada, and no concerns were raised during the consultation.
Senator Arnot: Thank you. I understand.
Senator Clement: I had a question on item 3, if we can go back to Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.
The Chair: We will not think about it as going back, just one to five.
Senator Clement: One to five. Thank you.
The Chair: Item 3 on the list. Mr. Tremblay and Ms. Grant?
Senator Clement: I am looking at the summary that has been provided. The act will be brought into force as soon as the treaty enters into force. However, before the treaty enters into force, it requires ratification by 44 specific states, and currently only 9 of 44 states have not yet ratified. That is good, I guess, but are we at a standstill? Can you go into detail about who those nine are and what the problem is?
Alison Grant, Director General, International Security Policy and Strategic Affairs Bureau, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you for the question.
The nine countries that have yet to complete the ratification are China, North Korea, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, the United States, and as well Russia because Russia revoked its ratification of the CTBT last year.
As you can see, it continues to be a challenge. It will continue to be a challenge to have this group of states ratify. They all have particular reasons why they don’t want to ratify. With many of them, Canada has difficult relations, though Canada is among a small group of countries that does quite a lot of advocacy on ratification of the CTBT. We’re part of a group called Friends of the CTBT, and every year, we are involved in diplomatic advocacy. We are seeing some results. We have had a number of countries ratify over the past several years. It is not totally out of the question, but it will be a challenge, I have to say, to get this group of countries to ratify, yes.
Senator Clement: The nine that you have named, it is difficult. When you say Friends of the CTBT, which countries belong to that group, or how does that work?
Ms. Grant: This is an informal diplomatic grouping of countries including Australia, Germany, Finland, Japan and the Netherlands.
Senator Clement: Okay.
Ms. Grant: I should add that there are many other partner countries of Canada that are involved in supporting ratification of the CTBT. Each year, we work within the United Nations to pass a United Nations General Assembly resolution advocating for the universal ratification of the CTBT. Almost all of Canada’s partners are part of that effort and sign on to that resolution.
Senator Clement: Thank you. That is clear.
The Chair: Ms. Grant, at a certain point, do we just give up and let this bill be repealed?
Ms. Grant: My best advice as a public servant would be no. There are many benefits to the current infrastructure that surrounds the CTBT and its international work, including the Preparatory Commission. The top two benefits, from my perspective, are, one, the entrenchment of the global norm against nuclear testing; and two, the system of international monitoring that the Preparatory Commission of the CTBT runs. There are 337 international monitoring sites around the world, 16 here in Canada. They are supported by the CTBT’s Preparatory Commission and can detect any nuclear test and have been successful in detecting all nuclear tests in the 21st century. Part of our contribution through our ratification of the act goes towards supporting that infrastructure.
The Chair: Thank you. That is helpful.
Are there other questions, colleagues, with respect to the first five items? Hearing none, we will move to the next grouping of five.
Senator Tannas, you wished to pose a question in relation to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. Maybe I can invite Mr. Irwin to join us.
Senator Tannas: Mr. Irwin, welcome. I wish to understand a bit more. This talks about the supplementary death benefits and elective service rules. We are at what appears to be 20-some years in. It celebrated its twenty-first birthday. What is the deal here? What does this do or not do, and why isn’t it being done?
Steve Irwin, Director, Pensions and Social Programs, Military Personnel Command, Department of National Defence: Mr. Chair, thank you for that question. I can answer that in two parts.
What this intends to do is to move a lot of regulatory-making ability out of the act and into regulations. In the administration of pensions, if you wanted to make a change, you would previously have to go back and change the actual legislation in support of it. These changes would move that to those areas of which you spoke, the supplementary death benefit and the making of elections into the regulations, which would make it easier to modernize.
The advantage of doing this takes into account the fluid and more flexible nature of Armed Forces employment in which, when you compare it to the public service, you have people who come in and have shorter careers. They are in and out. Many of those regulations which were established a long time ago aren’t as flexible as we would like. For example, the changes would allow us to update making the election or choice in your supplementary death benefit of being able to split it, as in the public service, to five potential beneficiaries. Right now, we’re limited to one. Those are the sorts of things. They are more anticipatory as opposed to actual requirements today.
Senator Tannas: What is the process here? Every time there is a new head of the Armed Forces, does somebody trundle into his office and say, “Do you want to have this enacted?” Who will eventually take this off the list one way or another? Who makes that decision?
Mr. Irwin: That’s a good question. It would not be the Chief of Defence Staff. It is progressing. I’m happy to say we are at the point where we are completed drafting. It is with the Department of Justice. It is a surprisingly complicated piece of legislation to do.
The department in itself has addressed what was considered a previous weakness in terms of the regulatory-making capability of the department at large. A couple of years ago, the previous deputy minister identified the need to generate that capacity. Most of the regulations that are generated for the Department of National Defence do now come through the King’s Regulations and Orders, which follow a different process so that, as a department, it did not have a lot of that regulatory-making capability. That deficiency has been addressed and has resulted in a significantly larger effort being put towards advancing regulatory changes and the capacity to make those happen.
Senator Tannas: By the way, this act was the creation of the Senate, driven by Senator Tommy Banks from Alberta. It was meant to do exactly what we’re now doing. This is a relatively novel process.
Will you go back to your folks and say, “Listen, I’m having to explain something that, when it’s coming out of my mouth, they must be thinking it has been 21 years so either somebody is horribly incompetent or it’s stuck somewhere and not getting anywhere”? At some point, should I be hopeful that you won’t have to come back and hear from me again when I ask you?
Mr. Irwin: Mr. Chair, I can assure you that I am very hopeful.
Senator Tannas: Good, sir. Thank you. That’s all I need for now.
Mr. Irwin: I can also assure you we have had the discussion about my dissatisfaction about having to be here again this year, which is a significant fire under the people who are working on it.
Senator Tannas: That was the intention of the act. Thank you.
The Chair: Are there more questions of Mr. Irwin?
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: I want to emphasize my support for Senator Tannas. I was calculating that the provisions of this statute have been subject to deferred repeal since 2013, starting nine years ago, whereas it is now 2024. Your explanation that pension fund legislation is complex doesn’t move me much. As treasury board president in Quebec, I’ve witnessed pension fund reforms. We managed to do it all within a 21-year timeframe, or even within a 2-year period.
It’s not a question of competence, but rather of willingness to implement the provisions of that law. I understand that you’re not the only one responsible, but I’d like you to pass on the committee members’ exasperation to the departmental officials who are responsible. I’m here for the first year and I expect to be here next year. I want to make a note of this provision. It is inconceivable — particularly when it comes to adding flexibility to a pension plan for people who have defended Canada on the battlefield, who are veterans or who are in the active forces — that these people should be at the mercy of contemplation for 20 years. That is totally unacceptable. The purpose of the legislation before us this morning seems clear to me.
A law is meant to come into force. It’s very difficult to explain to my daughters — who weren’t even born when that law was passed but have now finished university — that this law is not yet in force. It’s even harder to explain it to people serving in the armed forces, who expect more flexibility in their field. I understand that it has nothing to do with political will, which is expressed through the passage of legislation.
In the second part of the second recommendation, you say that a deferral of repeal of sections 13 and 46 is recommended to complete the review of the recommendations of the report of the Third Independent Review Authority. Can you tell the committee when the Third Independent Review Authority’s report was submitted to the department?
Mr. Irwin: If I understand your question correctly, you’re referring to the act on the modernization of—
Senator Moreau: I’m talking about defence counsel services. Section 13 is intended to provide for the rates and conditions of issue of pay of the Director of Military Prosecutions and the Director of Defence Counsel Services to be made in regulations. Section 46 provides the legislative authority to create a scheme in regulations to pay representation costs to military judges when they appear at an inquiry before the Military Judges Compensation Committee.
You say that a deferral of repeal of sections 13 and 46 is recommended to complete the review of the recommendations of the report to the authority. When was the authority’s report submitted to the department?
Mr. Irwin: I can assure you that this bill is a top priority for the Department of National Defence. It’s still a complex issue. Return to service affects many other regulations. There needs to be a very broad consultation between several committees and sectors within our department. As I explained, there was a lack of capacity to modernize and draft regulations, but that problem has now been properly identified. We’re working hard to adapt to that change.
Senator Moreau: You may not have the information, but I would like you to provide the committee clerk with the date on which the report of the Third Independent Review Authority to the Department of National Defence was filed with the department.
Mr. Irwin: Unfortunately, I don’t have that date.
Senator Moreau: Could you provide it to us?
Mr. Irwin: Yes.
Senator Moreau: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: You can do that, Mr. Irwin?
Mr. Irwin: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you.
Are there other questions with respect to Mr. Irwin? Hearing none, you are relieved, Mr. Irwin. It’s a rare occasion where somebody comes here and tells us fairly directly they wish they weren’t here. Thank you for your candour in that regard. Senator Tannas, I think, was conveying the same message, that he wishes you weren’t here either, so to speak.
Senator Simons: I would like to speak to item 8, which is item 11 in the annex. This is the Department of Public Services and Procurement from the Budget Implementation Act, 2005.
This is a peculiar sight, because it doesn’t seem, on the surface, to be all that complicated. The Budget Implementation Act of 2005 amended the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to provide that the Minister of Public Services and Procurement should have exclusive authority for procurement of services.
This was a budget passed by the Paul Martin government. It has been deferred from repeal since 2015, so that’s not 21 years but 19 years coming on to 20. The only explanation is that a deferral of repeal is recommended since additional time is required to complete consultations. I should have thought that even in Canada, 19 years was enough time to consult and to develop a robust implementation plan. Could you explain why something that seems, at first blush, to be straightforward has been languishing for 19 years?
Levent Özmutlu, Director General, Strategic Policy Sector, Public Services and Procurement Canada: Thank you for the question.
Maybe I can start off by quickly explaining that, currently, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement has exclusive authorities over goods procurement. Essentially, what this provision would do is also unify the service authorities with the minister. Given the work that is currently under way to increase accountability and stewardship over the procurement function, we feel that these provisions would, in fact, be useful, potentially, to ensure that.
Senator Simons: I’m sure they would. So why don’t we have them?
Mr. Özmutlu: In response to your question, initially, when these measures were introduced, it was at a time where the focus was more on cost savings and streamlining procurement. For a number of years, there was a lot of work that was done, as I understand it — it predates me as well, as you can appreciate — to build many of the tools that were required. From there on, there were consultations, but consensus couldn’t be reached with departments, as we understand it, in terms of the approach going forward. But as I have indicated, my understanding now is that there is perhaps more of an appetite to bring something like this into force.
Senator Simons: Just to be clear, the consultation is not with stakeholders outside of government; the consultation is with other government departments?
Mr. Özmutlu: That is correct, yes.
Senator Simons: What would happen if we didn’t agree to defer this one?
Mr. Özmutlu: The risk with that approach is that we may lose an opportunity to bring those authorities under the accountability of one minister. Again, given the current environment and the context, I think this could be a tool that is useful in providing that streamlined approach to procurement across the government.
Senator Simons: We can’t do anything about the test-ban treaty because Iran is not going to ratify it. The pension thing is complicated because you have all kinds of actuarial calculations, and you have different classes of dependents, so I can understand how that takes a long time. With this one, I confess that I find myself baffled. Since the government of Paul Martin decreed that procurement of services should be in the hands of the minister, and we have been incapable, over the course of three prime ministers, to make that happen.
I don’t know if you can answer this question, but are there people who think this is a bad idea and that the minister shouldn’t be solely responsible? Where is the resistance?
Mr. Özmutlu: Thank you for the question.
Perhaps I can answer this in a slightly different way. I can say that at the officials level, certainly we do see value in this. I can also tell you that there is work under way in earnest to determine how we can actually put this into force, without getting some of the other aspects of your question.
Senator Simons: I used to be a daily newspaper writer, so the idea for me that 19 years is insufficient to consult with other government departments on a government priority perplexes me.
Senator Batters: First of all, my husband was a Member of Parliament in 2005, and I know well that that time of the Paul Martin government was during the sponsorship scandal and when the Gomery commission was going on. I’m guessing that dealing with this type of procurement issue was probably something related to that, which created a lot of shock waves in the government.
Now we’re getting an answer that consensus couldn’t be reached with departments. Why doesn’t the federal government just tell these departments to get their act together and have an actual solution on this after 19 years, as Senator Simons pointed out? I really don’t understand what the holdup is when the consultations are with departments. They are saying, “Well, if we don’t defer that on this one, then that might lose accountability with this one minister being able to take over.” I don’t understand this. What is really going on here? Why doesn’t Privy Council step in and say, “Hey, everybody, this is embarrassing. Let’s fix this.”
Mr. Özmutlu: Thank you for the question.
I’m afraid I can’t speak to some aspects of your question related to the government, but what I can say is that there is work under way to look at how this could be operationalized. At the official level, we certainly do agree that bringing these provisions into force would, in fact, allow for there to be a greater sense of accountability, to bring those authorities under one minister. I can’t talk to some of the context that you mentioned, but we certainly view this as being a powerful tool going forward.
Senator Batters: There are some people from Privy Council here, I think, for one of the different items in this section. Is there anybody from Privy Council here that can answer that question about why they wouldn’t just step in to actually make this happen and not have one department hold up what should be done? It’s important when you have these kinds of procurement situations. We have seen a lot of bad procurement situations going on with the current government. Maybe some of these could have been solved before they turned into a scandal if we had something like this in place. Is there anyone from the Privy Council Office here that can answer that?
Sarah Stinson, Director of Operations, Democratic Institutions, Privy Council Office: This is not, via the chair, my area of expertise. We support Minister LeBlanc as the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs. I’m not sure who within the Privy Council Office would be responsible for this. I identify myself as the Privy Council Office representative on a different matter.
The Chair: I think we may not get anybody volunteering to answer Senator Batter’s question directly. I suppose, both informally and quite possibly in the remarks we make at the end of the report, there will be a message coming back to other components of the Privy Council. We’re underwhelmed, I guess, is a fair way of putting it.
Senator Batters: Underwhelmed, yes.
The Chair: Senator Batters will write the words in the report that identify the strength of her concern.
Senator Batters: So that’s the only person from Privy Council?
The Chair: There are a couple of others here, Senator Batters, but their expertise is completely unrelated to this.
Senator Batters: They don’t deal with that. Thank you.
The Chair: Are there other questions in this segment of non-repeal bills?
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Number 10 refers to the Budget Implementation Act, 2009.
[English]
The Chair: Ms. Lemieux and Mr. Nielsen are the people on this.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Chair, the individuals joining us today are important, therefore, I think that they aren’t here just for fun. We’re asking hard questions. It’s important to clearly understand why the provisions should be repealed and to determine if there aren’t any other mechanisms. I want to apologize in advance to those appearing before the committee, because they aren’t the ones responsible for all the delays. I understand that.
You are asking to retain, in particular sections 401 and 404 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2009, which are intended to support the implementation of the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, so that those provisions are not repealed until the last complaint filed under the old provisions has been concluded. Here is my question: would it not be appropriate to replace that request with a transitional provision, which would ensure that any remaining complaints filed are subject to the old regime, instead of leaving an act or provisions in force until the last complaint has been concluded? That might take some time, unless you know on what dates the last complaints will be heard, which would surprise me.
Julie Lemieux, Director, Policy Development and Integration, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you for your question. I am pleased to share with you that we are making progress on that complaint, which was filed by a public sector bargaining agent in February 2016. In 2017, the Government of Canada entered into discussions with that bargaining agent to work on a joint study on the complaint.
I can say that negotiations on the main technical aspects of the study have already been completed. The second phase of the study has begun. That phase involves completing assessments of the value of work in a sample of positions and collecting compensation information that will be analyzed by a service provider.
The third phase, selecting a salary comparison method to determine if a wage gap exists, will begin shortly. Should the study reveal a wage gap, the parties have agreed to put in place a process to eliminate it. We are making progress. We hope to complete the study within the next few years.
Senator Moreau: Did you say, in the next few years?
Ms. Lemieux: Yes.
Senator Moreau: The complaint we’re talking about is about seven or eight years old, right?
Ms. Lemieux: Yes.
Senator Moreau: You won’t have finished processing a single complaint, which means that these provisions will remain in place for another eight years?
Ms. Lemieux: Yes. Unfortunately, pay equity complaints are really complex and time-consuming. We are working closely with the bargaining agent to continue the work, while work is also being done on implementing pay equity throughout the government under the current legislation.
Senator Moreau: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Are there other questions with respect to this particular topic of Ms. Lemieux or Mr. Nielsen? Hearing none, are there other questions with respect to this grouping of items, 6 through 10? Hearing none, I thank you all.
We’ll move on to the next grouping, items 11 through 15. Senator Arnot has indicated that he wishes to pose a question in relation to item 12. We invite Ms. Runa Angus to join us. Thank you.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, Ms. Angus and Mr. Rogers. My reading of the act and the report, specifically item 12, suggests to me that what has not come into force is the private right to apply to the courts for compensation in what might broadly be described as a hacking situation. I see that this legislation came into force in 2010, so this is the fourteenth time someone has come to tell us about this. It seems to me, as well, that 14 years is eons in the technology world. Technology seems to change geometrically every couple of days. Am I right on that? Then I have a second question for clarification.
Runa Angus, Senior Director, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada: Thank you very much for the question.
Canada’s anti-spam legislation was enacted in 2010 and came into force in 2014. In 2017, the government decided to suspend the entry into force of those private right-of-action provisions because it was a new regulatory scheme. Industry had indicated some concerns with respect to the extent of their obligations under the scheme. It was really intended to allow for a smooth transition to a new regulatory scheme where there was a little more comfort in terms of understanding their obligations on this, again, very new and innovative scheme at the time.
Since then, there was also a statutory review at the INDU Committee, which is the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. The INDU committee, among other things, recommended the government look into the impact of the implementation of the private right-of-action provisions. The government responded to say that it would look at that as part of broader consultations with stakeholders on the act and bringing clarity to the act, including to those provisions.
Since 2017, the government tabled this report to that INDU Committee study in 2018. Since then, the government has undertaken a number of reviews in what I would say are very related areas. There was a review on competition. There is currently ongoing a review on cybersecurity; that is Bill C-26. There is also a bill in front of the House on personal information and AI, which is Bill C-27.
It is our belief that the review of CASL and thinking about how these provisions should be implemented and the impact of the implementation would benefit from the completion of those other reviews on issues that are very related to the electronic marketplace and building trust in the electronic marketplace.
Senator Arnot: Without this provision being enacted, does a citizen have a private right to seek compensation under other legislation?
Ms. Angus: No. However, there is still enforcement action that happens under Canada’s anti-spam legislation. Administrative monetary penalties can be levied. As of this time, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, for example, has levied over $3 million in administrative monetary penalties under CASL.
Senator Arnot: So you want this renewed, in effect, so that other studies can inform the government on other issues? Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Angus: That is correct.
Senator Simons: I had a different question, but first I will follow up where Senator Arnot’s questions left off. You say “other studies,” but these are bills. Bill C-26, we’ve been told, has some significant drafting concerns. It was not able to go through clause-by-clause at its scheduled time this week. Bill C-27, given the precarity of government, may not make it to the Senate at all before we go to the polls. This legislation was passed in 2010 and came into force in 2014, long before Bill C-26 and Bill C-27 were ever envisaged. I don’t understand how they are the excuse to not act on this.
Ms. Angus: Thank you very much for the question.
You’re absolutely right. Obviously, this act came into force before Bill C-26 and Bill C-27 were on the table. I would highlight that Bill C-26 deals with cybersecurity and Bill C-27 deals with personal information. Canada’s anti-spam legislation, when it did come into force, made consequential amendments to the predecessor, the act that is currently in force on personal information, which is PIPEDA, which Bill C-27 intends to replace.
The issues of spam, hacking and alteration or transmission of data are issues that are very connected to cybersecurity, very connected to personal information and very connected to artificial intelligence, which is also a part of Bill C-27. Artificial intelligence will be a vector with respect to phishing scams, for example.
The reasoning is that it would be good to see where those pieces of legislation land or don’t. That will inform the direction and a review or consultation with stakeholders. We are talking about a very important part of the enforcement scheme in Canada’s anti-spam legislation. We have committed to talking to stakeholders about how that scheme is implemented. That will be influenced by what is happening in other spaces that are connected, notably cybersecurity, personal information and AI. The stakeholders are dealing with all of those issues.
Senator Simons: In the meantime, people have not been able to seek recompense for damages, nor will they for foreseeable future.
To come back to the question I was going to ask, you say in here there is uncertainty surrounding the interpretation of several of its provisions. Could you give us some examples of provisions that are uncertain in how they are being interpreted?
Ms. Angus: This was the conclusion of the INDU Committee study in 2017, where they thought that certain definitions in the act, including with respect to defining commercial electronic messages, were not entirely clear. There are 13 recommendations on that. In fact, the title of the report is Clarifications are in Order. One of those things was precisely what the impact of having a private right of action would be, again, along with some definitions within the act. I can certainly bring more information to the committee or transmit more information to the committee based on the INDU Committee report. Essentially, it was with respect to some definitions and the impact of certain provisions on the industry.
Senator Simons: The trouble is that, in the time that this has sat in abeyance, spam attacks have increased — geometrically was Senator Arnot’s word, but I would say exponentially. Hardly a day goes by that we’re not bombarded with those kinds of spam in our cell phones. They’ve made landlines completely unusable. It’s a shame that we have not done more to tackle this problem while we have been waiting for it to come into force.
Ms. Angus: On that issue, I would say that CASL came into force in 2014. In 2015, there was a report released that, since CASL came into force, spam, Canadian-based spam — all of it obviously does not originate in Canada — but Canadian-based spam was reduced by 37%.
Senator Simons: That was in that one-year period, but what is it now compared to what it was?
Ms. Angus: I don’t have the numbers for that. Again, Canada was one of the primary originators of spam in the world. That is no longer the case because we do have one of the world’s toughest anti-spam laws, compared to, for example, the U.S.
Senator Simons: Thank you.
Senator Batters: On the same topic, first of all, for any normal people who might happen to be watching this, I assume that when you refer to the INDU Committee, that is the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology? Is that right?
Ms. Angus: That’s correct.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
I’m the critic, actually, for Bill C-26, the cyber security bill. How do the provisions that you are referencing here impact Bill C-26, dealing with these provisions for which you are seeking to defer the repeal?
Ms. Angus: I can’t really speak directly to Bill C-26. That’s not my area of expertise. I can say that it deals with, again, the broad issue of cybersecurity, which is also what Canada’s anti-spam legislation deals with in terms of unsolicited commercial electronic messages, alteration of transmission data and the installation of computer programs such as malware on computers. They are connected issues.
Senator Batters: Right. But these provisions on which you are seeking to defer repeal, does that have — the provisions of Bill C-26, which the committee is studying right now and which the Senate is debating right now, do they have any impact on that bill or not? If you don’t know, is there anyone else here from your department who could answer those questions? Could we get some answers provided to us?
Ms. Angus: I can bring some more clarity with respect to the actual provisions for which we are seeking deferral. They are obviously related to private right of action for violations of Canada’s anti-spam legislation — nothing in Bill C-26, but the violations that are outlined in Canada’s anti-spam legislation. There is no direct impact.
Senator Batters: There are significant penalties for people who violate the cybersecurity provisions that are provided for in Bill C-26. Not having this bill in front of me right now, I do not know how that might relate, but are you saying that the provisions you are talking about don’t have any impact on that?
Ms. Angus: They don’t relate directly to Bill C-26. They relate specifically to any violations of Canada’s anti-spam legislation. There might be other causes of action within other bills on related issues, but really, the private right of action is targeted towards the violations that are listed in Canada’s anti-spam legislation.
Senator Batters: Yes. Bill C-26 is not so much about creating causes of action but more about punishing people, potentially by major fines, multimillion-dollar fines and potential jail time, things like that. Yes, here we’re dealing with potential rights of actions for those types of violations, but wouldn’t those be potentially — because we do not know yet. A lot of this stuff is yet to be determined by the Governor-in-Council and by the cabinet when they do the regulatory process in the next number of years. Wouldn’t that be the kind of thing that could potentially be the subject of those types of regulations, those kinds of actions? I am not talking about the legal action — not the causes of action but the potential cybersecurity actions. Do you know what I mean?
Ms. Angus: Again, I can’t speak specifically to Bill C-26. I can say that there is absolutely a potential where these issues could be connected and where a particular company may be subject to causes of actions or fines under multiple different pieces of legislation. That is certainly possible. That is also one of the reasons why we would like to see the conclusion of those reviews in order to inform the implementation of the provisions of CASL.
Senator Batters: That is actually part of the reason that you’re seeking this deferral, to consider whether Bill C-26, which is at committee in the Senate, and Bill C-27, which the Senate doesn’t even have yet, might have an impact?
Ms. Angus: That’s right.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
The Chair: May I ask one question, Ms. Angus, to see that I understand this correctly? There is a provision in this legislation that would make possible a private right of action. It’s been there for a long time. That provision has been suspended in terms of coming into force by order-in-council.
Ms. Angus: That’s right, yes.
The Chair: If we do nothing, if we do not authorize the deferral of the repeal, this provision would be repealed, and there would be no private cause of action available any more under this act? It is presently intended that it be, if I could use this phrase, held in a state of suspension in case it becomes appropriate to be kicked in at some point?
Ms. Angus: Yes. You’re absolutely correct in terms of how the process would work. I would add that, again, the government had committed in 2018 to consult stakeholders on the implementation of that act. As a public official, my best advice would be we should have that consultation in terms of the impact of that in light of the other related studies, reviews and bills that are in process before we take out that very significant part of the enforcement regime of CASL.
The Chair: The idea is to at least preserve its availability if that seems to be the right policy choice down the road?
Ms. Angus: That is correct.
The Chair: If we do not accede to the request for the deferral of repeal, this piece goes in the garbage?
Ms. Angus: That is correct.
The Chair: Are there other questions on this group of proposed deferrals of repeals? Great. In that case, we can move to the next group, which is 16 to 20.
I apologize. I do have a question on 13. This is a question for Mr. Burnett or Mr. Begg. It is in relation to these Bank Act provisions and foreign subsidiaries.
Steven Begg, Acting Director, Competition and Strategic Initiatives, Financial Institutions Division, Department of Finance Canada: I’m here for a few items. You said it was the foreign subsidiaries?
The Chair: This is the foreign subsidiaries of large banks. Can you, in two minutes, tell me what is going on here? This does not seem to be all that difficult. Either we would do it or not, and 9 or 10 years seems to be a long time to sort it out. Can you give us a snapshot of what this is all about?
Mr. Begg: I’m sorry, I’m hard-of-hearing and didn’t quite get that. Why did it take so long?
The Chair: It seemed to me a straightforward set of decisions, particularly in the financial sector as opposed to inside-the-government sector. I would have thought things would be resolved quickly one way or the other on these questions.
Mr. Begg: Part 12 of the act deals with subsidiaries of foreign banks operating in Canada. There is a carve out in there for foreign subsidiaries of Canadian banks so that they are able to operate in Canada in certain circumstances.
The sections in question were brought forward in response to a possible situation around 2012 where a Canadian bank was looking into purchasing the financial subsidiary of a U.S. automaker. It raised, for the moment, the possibility that this subsidiary could be used to offer auto loans in Canada, which the bank would otherwise be prohibited from doing. That didn’t materialize.
At the time, a number of Canadian banks raised concerns that if these amendments were to go into effect anyway, that would prohibit them from doing some beneficial activities. We have cases where Canadian banks are able, through their subsidiaries, to offer U.S. bank accounts to snowbirds or people who live part of the year in the U.S.
Why does it take so long? We are currently doing a statutory review of the financial statutes. As part of that review, we will come to a final decision in early 2025 on whether this is necessary or not and either amend, repeal or bring it into force.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Begg: Thanks.
Senator Batters: Mr. Begg, you mentioned that you are hard of hearing. I wanted to let you know that I do not think that there is any translation devices which also provide amplification at the seats back there. If you were able to sit at one of the side ones, they do have those, and you can use the earpiece to have an easier time hearing what is going on.
Mr. Begg: Thank you.
Senator Batters: No problem. I wanted to make sure you could have an easier time.
Senator Simons: Item 14, am I not seeing the explanation? This is an act to amend the Railway Safety Act. I want to clarify what this choice is with item 14. I’m not seeing it in the annex. Is it just me?
Ms. Mingarelli: The annex explains the request for reporting the appeal.
Senator Simons: Can you tell me what number it is in the annex?
Ms. Mingarelli: It is not in the annex because these provisions will be repealed at the end of the year, so there is no request for pushing back the repeal.
Senator Simons: My apologies.
Ms. Mingarelli: No problem.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Mingarelli.
We will move to the next group. Senator Tannas, you had a question with respect to 19, the Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act?
Senator Tannas: Yes.
The Chair: Is Mr. Kennedy able to join us at the table?
Senator Tannas: Hello, Mr. Kennedy. I was surprised to see this act. I was the sponsor of this act 12 years ago. I remember it well. It was the first government bill that I sponsored, one of only two that I sponsored. I did not know that it never came into force other than one tangential clause in the entire act.
In here, it said that there is more consultation. If I remember right, there are 300 people in the Yale First Nation. You could have consulted for a week with every single person in Yale First Nation and had hundreds of days left over, so it can’t be consultation. It must be something else.
It brought to my mind that maybe there was a change of heart with the Yale First Nation and that is what the problem is, that they changed their mind. That must be what it is. Can you help me with that? If it isn’t, then we need more than just more consultation.
Jake Kennedy, Director General, Policy and Partnerships Branch, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I had significantly less grey in my beard at that time. I was working in this area, and I recall you sponsoring that bill.
The community did have a change of heart prior to the effective date, and both Canada and B.C. never fully enacted the legislation as a result.
Also, as a result, and with the departmental split between Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations, the primary relationship with the Yale Indian band is through ISC because of the funding relationship that they have. We have been reaching out continually to try to have engagement and consultation with them. As recently as March, we sent a formal letter to them requesting some conversations around this. Unfortunately, we continue to have no response.
Senator Tannas: Thank you. I suspected it was something like that.
They never got millions and millions in cash plus title to thousands of acres of land if I remember right. They are still not in possession of either of those things. Is that right?
Mr. Kennedy: You are correct.
Senator Tannas: Goodness. Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Tannas, how long before you have to retire from the Senate? I’m worried about whether a couple of these bills get resolved before you —
Senator Tannas: For me, if I got that answer, I was going to go have a visit with them to see what is going on.
The Chair: Thank you for the intervention. It is disappointing that good work of a decade ago seems to have been left in suspension.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Thank you. Now I know who is behind this bill, which has almost become law.
Who has been consulted? I understand that the nation itself has been consulted. Is it possible to have the public portion of that consultation? Can we have access to that?
I understand we are in consultation.
Can it have a positive effect if we accept the department’s recommendations, knowing that there may be a political change, with a vision to continue working on the act or the bill? That would give them a chance not to start all over again. Can you give us an answer? If there’s no more time, you can do it in writing. Thank you.
Mr. Kennedy: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[English]
I will have to get back to you because I will need to go back and check on those records. They are fairly old, and I’m not sure what is available in terms of their public position. There was an election that was held. Following the election, the new chief and council had determined not to move forward at that time. I imagine there was some form of written communication. I would have to verify that.
In terms of your question around the ability to not lose the progress of that time, certainly there’s been a number of policy changes and different approaches the federal government has brought in place since that time around how we negotiate agreements. That would be a part of the consultation that would need to happen, whether they are seeking to go back and renegotiate that agreement before bringing it forward, in which case we would need to repeal the legislation, or there is also the option of bringing it forward, enacting the legislation and doing subsequent amendments to the treaty with them.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: It’s important to have the facts. It sounds like you are acting in good faith and continuing to consult. There may be challenges involving the province, the federal government or the nation. For us, these are important elements to ensure that we don’t have to see you again at this committee during future negotiations or bills and that the agreements are signed. Do you have any public documents that would help us understand why we are where we are?
[English]
Mr. Kennedy: Yes, absolutely. I will look into that and submit it.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: You can share that with the committee through the clerk, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you. We’ll make sure Senator Tannas reads it with care.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: This week, protocol is a bit difficult for me. I’m sorry.
Are the sums allocated at the time still available, and are the interests on track?
Mr. Kennedy: Thank you for your question.
[English]
That is a very good question. I would have to double-check on that. I am not completely sure. I believe it would be booked within the fiscal framework, but I would have to go back and double-check that.
Senator Audette: You will give us the answer?
Mr. Kennedy: Absolutely, yes.
Senator Audette: Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any other questions with respect to this group?
Which number, Senator Clement?
Senator Clement: It is number 16 on the annual report, Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act.
The Chair: Mr. Wagdin, thank you for joining us.
Senator Clement: These changes happened more quickly than some of the issues raised by my colleagues on other bills. I remember this. This was when there was a proactive enrollment regime that would eliminate the need for many seniors to have to apply for OAS and the allowance. I remember that because I was still working at the legal aid clinic in my home community, offering services to seniors. This was a relief for many people, particularly vulnerable seniors.
You have gone through implementation on this for the OAS, and then for the Guaranteed Income Supplement. You are pausing on making it applicable to the allowance for a survivor. I am trying to understand.
This is the third year you are in the appeal process. I know that is young compared to some of these others, but there are many vulnerable people who benefit from this. Then you say something about “development work.” I do not understand what you mean by that.
Kevin Wagdin, Director, Old Age Security Policy and Legislation, Employment and Social Development Canada: Thank you for the question.
As you mentioned, we have been rolling out automatic enrollment in stages, essentially, trying to get the biggest bang for our buck. The first stage was related to automatic enrollment for the full pensions, and then in 2017 we expanded to automatic enrollment for the GIS.
At any given time, we have about 7.1 million OAS pensioners. We only have about 70,000 allowance recipients. From a triaging perspective, that is why the allowances came last.
Senator Clement: Okay.
Mr. Wagdin: We are fully doing the analysis to determine whether or not the current regime and legislative provisions we have in place, frankly, are still the best model.
When we implemented all of these changes for all of these benefits in 2012, it was a novel approach. We implemented those. We have learned a few lessons in terms of improvements that might be made in terms of our model, and we want to make sure the model we have is the best possible. There are a couple of other elements that you have to coordinate to do any of these phases, which is regulatory work, information-sharing work and determining the information we have on hand is a good proxy for the eligibility information someone would provide on an application.
The biggest is a systems perspective. We have to make sure our systems are able to support any of these stages of automatic enrollment. Most of our major projects right now are awaiting a migration of OAS accounts onto a new IT system. That system is scheduled to go online in March. For us, having that last ship come into port, for lack of a better term, is really the last thing we would need to be able to go forward.
Again, we want to make sure that when we are implementing automatic enrollment in these stages, is the allowance the next best phase, or is there potentially another expansion of OAS or GIS that would simplify applications for more seniors overall? There is a little bit of that consideration going on as well.
Senator Clement: These 70,000 people are survivors, right? They are widows and widowers? Is that who we are talking about?
Mr. Wagdin: There are two different kinds of allowances. The allowances are paid for a fixed term, so it is when somebody is between the ages of 60 and 64. They have 10 years of residence in Canada. Then we pay an allowance to somebody who was the spouse or common-law partner of a GIS recipient. That is one kind of allowance. The other kind of allowance is this allowance for the survivor. That is an individual who is a widow or widower. Again, the distribution between allowance versus allowance for the survivor, if it was 50% or so, you would be looking about 37,000 or so individuals at any given time. Then those benefits are a transition into the OAS and GIS programs, which then are payable for life.
Senator Clement: You said you learned some things because it was a novel and good approach, particularly for vulnerable individuals. Are those learned things that will make you do a course correction, or is this just from an IT perspective?
Mr. Wagdin: With the automatic enrollment model now — and I will use the pension as an example — we determine what information we have on hand already within ESDC or at CRA. We identify somebody who we believe is going to be eligible in a year’s time for the pension. We go out to them. We notify them of our intent to automatically enroll them. Then that individual is given an opportunity to correct any inaccuracies in the information we have. If the individual does not want to delay receiving their OAS pension — for instance, if they wanted to defer for a higher actuarial factor — they then have to take the one proactive step to tell us, “No, I don’t want it.” Then, in the absence of any of that information, we go ahead and put them into pay.
It is not as easy when it comes to the Guaranteed Income Supplement and the allowances because there is a marital status component. You also have to then reach out to the spouse or common-law partner.
Senator Clement: Right.
Mr. Wagdin: The other interesting thing, particularly with the allowance for the survivor, is there isn’t a great proxy for us to say we know this person has been a widow or widower essentially since that marital status ended, and they have never thereafter been a widow or in a common-law relationship, or a marriage. We want to make sure we are pinning down the exact, right information to be able to use as a proxy.
In the meantime, we’re trying to simplify all of our application processes to the greatest extent possible, so that means targeted outreach. That means going out to folks who we believe may be eligible and saying, “Listen, we may not be able to put you into pay automatically, but we can tell you that you might have some eligibility for this benefit.” The biggest thing overall is that none of this affects somebody’s entitlement to a benefit itself. They always have the opportunity to be able to apply on their own.
Senator Clement: Right. Thank you.
The Chair: Are there other comments with respect to this grouping?
Senator Tannas: I am scared I missed it. Where are we? Are we still doing 18?
The Chair: Yes, 18.
Senator Tannas: Okay, great.
The Chair: Colonel Lortie, this is with respect to the Strengthening Military Justice question, and Mr. Irwin is back, reluctantly, no doubt.
Senator Tannas: Yes. Our friend is back.
First of all, I want to make sure that I understood this. I guess the third independent review authority is doing some kind of a review. When did that review start? That’s the reason we’re not enacting these, but you want to keep them; is that right?
The Chair: Can you start with that question, then, Colonel Lortie?
Senator Tannas: There is something about a review and that you want to hang onto this pending the review.
Colonel Geneviève Lortie, Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice Modernization, Department of National Defence: Thank you for the question.
The report of the third independent review was tabled before both houses on June 1, 2021. That was also the date that was requested earlier by the other senator that my colleague didn’t have the answer to and committed to provide the date. The date is June 1, 2021.
Since then, work has been done on all the recommendations to address them. There were over 107 recommendations, mainly touching on the modernization of the military justice system.
Senator Tannas: In the recommendations, was there anything relating to section 12 and section 13, specifically what sections 12 and 13 intended to have happen 11 years ago?
Mr. Irwin: I’m happy to speak to that.
Section 12 deals with the reinstatement of members of the Armed Forces that were released and wanted to be brought back in because it was deemed that their release was improper. That’s a fairly complicated regulatory undertaking. It touches an awful lot of pay, pension and other regulations that are at play. Presently, you can only fully reinstate someone if it is a result of a change in the outcome of a court-martial. It becomes much more ambiguous if it’s deemed that the release was improper. Getting the definition of what is improper is an ongoing undertaking, but it is getting significant attention in terms of ensuring that all proper mechanisms and regulatory processes are in place to ensure that can be done.
Senator Tannas: I can picture the context in 2013. There was a lot of talk back then about lots of different ways in which veterans had been treated unfairly and were trying to get redress. This seemed to me to be something that would place it quite rightly with the Chief of the Defence Staff. We’re not talking about somebody junior who could make a decision. It would be the Chief of the Defence Staff, or I suppose you could delegate that authority. I don’t know about delegation, but the point is that for today’s Chief of the Defence Staff, would she be aware that she has this right but for it languishing pending a review of a report that was produced three years ago, but that she has this power? I’m curious how these kinds of things go so long when Parliament has willed something. So who sits on this?
Again, my question is, when you get a new Chief of the Defence Staff, does somebody go with a laundry list and say, “Hey, you have this power, but it has been sitting here. Somebody, somewhere before made a decision. You should take it up. All you need to do is ask, and you can have it,” or whatever the process is to liven it up? It must have been — I guess I’m not 100% sure. There was a cabinet decision that decided not to enact these pieces? Who decided not to enact these two sections?
Col. Lortie: Thank you for the question.
Many provisions from that main act were brought into force. The last provisions were in 2018. Following that, there was a lot of work done on other priorities based on the resources that were there to bring into force the provision of victim rights, to bring into force the declaration of victim rights in the National Defence Act, and also to repeal the summary trial and change the summary hearing. For many years, there was work that brought all these provisions in the act into force and changed many of the regulations, so that was the following group of work that has been done on regulations.
Since then, other than the third independent review, National Defence received many other reports. Since then, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces issued a comprehensive implementation plan. All of that was to provide a detailed road map over a five-year period from 2023 to 2028 for the implementation of 206 recommendations from four key external reports, and the third independent review was one of those reports.
Senator Tannas: So section 12 and section 13 and their enactment finally would be the intention, then; is that right? It’s on the road map to get done, and what year will it be done in the five years coming up?
Col. Lortie: Part of what is happening right now is two sections, section 13 and section 46 of the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act which are not in force right now and have common recommendations from the Fish report, which is the third independent review that touched on the same topic.
If I talk about section 46, that touched on the military judge’s compensation committee, and that brings a statutory basis to create a regulatory scheme. It’s linked with some recommendations of the Fish report that touched on the permanent military court and the similization of judges. Justice Fish recommended creating the permanent military group working group. That one started and met for the first time in January of 2024. The goal is to identify the most effective framework for the creation of a permanent military court of Canada. It includes an independent authority, a representative of the Department of Justice and the Office of the Judge Advocate General. They are working right now to finalize a consultation paper and to initiate the consultation. It will end up with a final report to the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Justice on options and recommendations for a permanent military court, including the similization of judges. That could have an effect on section 46, which is not in force, and until those reports get concluded, we’re waiting to develop further regulation.
Senator Tannas: What I’m really quite interested in is section 12, which deals with veterans. Is it in the report anywhere that it’s going to be — is it in the five-year road map to get done? No, it’s not. So who decided that they didn’t want to deal with this? A law gets passed in Parliament, a majority government makes a pronouncement, and somebody decides — we don’t know who, and maybe you can help me — somebody decides not to do it. Who was that somebody, and how long do they get to have their thumb on this?
Mr. Irwin: Mr. Chair, I may have miscommunicated or been unclear. Addressing section 12 is a high, high priority, and there are a considerable number of people working on it now to get it done. I fully expect it to be done within the next two to five years.
Senator Tannas: It has taken 17 years to get something as simple as giving the authority to the Chief of Defence to decide that somebody has been improperly fired or released and provide some method of compensation. I don’t get it. Who decided that? I mean, that has to be institutional blockage, not anything other than that. It has to be. How can it possibly be anything else? If the rest of the world operated this way, we would still be using hammers and picks to chop stone out. It’s nuts.
Can you provide the committee, rather than having us all glaring at you, some kind of a reasonable explanation of how section 12 is 11 or 12 years on and has not been enacted? And with apparently no intention of it being enacted, based on all the reports and the road map that this isn’t in. I think that would be something maybe that we could sink our teeth into, because maybe this is an example that we want to highlight in our report of conscious inaction of the will of Parliament. I’d like to get something to make sure that we’re on solid ground and that there isn’t some reasonable explanation that I missed in what I just heard. Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Irwin, or maybe Colonel Lortie, could I ask whether, in the spirit of time, there are substantial number of Armed Forces people who were released who are in a state of suspended animation, wondering and hoping that their situation will be able to be addressed and their release cancelled?
I guess as a supplementary, I would have thought, in my own way, trying to answer Senator Tannas’ question, that this is something where the Chief of Defence Staff says, “Get me the authorization,” and it appears that hasn’t happened. Could you answer both of those questions?
Mr. Irwin: To the best of my knowledge, there is no one in the category of waiting to be reenrolled due to an improper release. That is not clearly my primary area of expertise, but I would be happy to get back to the committee in the event that there is someone on that list.
I can again assure you that it has the attention of the department. I mentioned earlier that the Department of National Defence is building a regulatory development capacity largely to deal with these issues that have been bogged down, and I can assure you that it has very focused attention by a number of people that are trying to get it finished.
The Chair: Can I just say, in that respect then, if it turns out that your information on people looking for reinstatement, who’ve been released, is inaccurate, you could share that information with the committee? We are in I guess I would say a dilemma in that if we decided to reject the recommendation here, we make things worse because we then allow this provision to be repealed. I want to be careful with my words because I don’t know how rich the tenor will be, but the way in which we can make our point as parliamentarians is not to change the world but to communicate a message that we’re not very happy with the pace at which these matters get addressed.
Senator Tannas: My understanding, chair, is that we get to do this all over again on this subject next year, right? This is an annual thing, or does this go away for 10 years? It doesn’t. This time next year, we have to watch to make sure it doesn’t just disappear either, right?
The Chair: I think it probably can’t disappear because either it gets implemented or it gets repealed or gets extended, so we have the ability to keep an eye on it.
Senator Pate: Thank you, Senator Cotter and Senator Tannas, for pursuing this. I would like to add to the information that would be, I think, useful for us to have on this is if, in fact, there is nobody that applies to now, is that in part because of the passage of time and the non-implementation of this? They’re veterans, so it could be people have died before this has been implemented. And being familiar with some older cases than perhaps these, there are a number of folks, particularly in junior ranks, who were released in these kinds of situations in the past and had to actually go to court, which was a very long and arduous process for people who are let go and then don’t have resources. I’m curious as to how many court cases have been involved in generating this, as well as how many veterans it would seem to apply to at the beginning. If it’s none now, why? What’s the attrition been?
Mr. Irwin: Mr. Chair, we’d be more than happy to track down that information.
The Chair: Thank you. Maybe share it with us through the clerk, Mr. Irwin.
Mr. Irwin: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: I’ll put my question to Colonel Lortie. You may have information that Mr. Irwin did not have. My question relates to Senator Tannas’ concern that we still have an obligation to ensure that the intent of the legislator is not deliberately circumvented by failing to act. When was the report of the third independent review authority submitted to the department? Do you know?
Col. Lortie: It was tabled in both houses of Parliament on June 1, 2021.
Senator Moreau: In 2021. So, since 2021, you’ve been working on completing the review of the recommendations. Is that what you’re telling us?
Col. Lortie: That’s right. There were 107 recommendations, all of which were accepted in principle by the department and the Canadian Armed Forces, and since then we’ve been actively working on implementing some of the recommendations, all of them. Some need a legislative amendment, and this year the Minister of National Defence introduced a bill, Bill C-66, which is at second reading in the House of Commons, to modernize the military justice system. The bill includes some of Justice Fish’s recommendations; since then, we have also had Justice Arbour’s report, which made a number of recommendations, the main one concerning military justice, which is also included in this bill. A great deal of work is being done by the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces to implement all of those recommendations.
Senator Moreau: You are giving us the date on which it was tabled in both houses, but when did the department receive that report?
Col. Lortie: That happened a few months before the tabling. I don’t have the exact date.
Senator Moreau: So would it be 2021 or around then?
Col. Lortie: Yes, 2021, definitely.
Senator Moreau: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: I think we will move on to the final grouping. With the greatest respect to the next five items, if you have essential questions, I would invite you to ask them, but we are a bit tight for time now, and I don’t want to extend us very much past our normal meeting time. We do need to reflect a little bit on the likelihood that we would like to make some observations about what we have learned in the course of the meeting.
In the next grouping, are there questions you would like to pose with respect to items 21 to 25? Which item, Senator Clement?
Senator Clement: Number 23.
The Chair: This would be in relation to the Economic Action Plan?
Senator Clement: Yes.
The Chair: You were ready, Mr. Leblanc. Thank you.
Senator Clement: This is about the sponsorship one. It seems it’s going to come into force December 31, 2024. This one seems on track.
Mr. Wagdin: It’s on track. The coming into force date will be at some point in 2025. We have a Governor-in-Council package that’s currently being prepared. We do intend to bring this into force in the coming year.
There were a few reasons for delays, the first of which is the first cohort of individuals that would have been impacted by these provisions would begin being impacted in 2026, so we had a runway inherently built into that. There was also a need to be able to coordinate with IRCC to be able to ensure we had the right information-sharing mechanisms in place to be able to facilitate this. Those are now in place, and we are now in the process of bringing this into force.
Senator Clement: I am wondering about the difficulties that IRCC is having generally — we’re aware that it has been tense around the issue of immigration in this country — and if that has anything to do with this.
Mr. Wagdin: I don’t believe so. There is an existing limit right now where we exchange information with IRCC, but we very much do it on a one-off basis. I do not believe that our systems were set up to speak to one another naturally in the way that we do with CRA, for instance. It’s a more novel approach that way and a new data exchange we were going to be able to leverage to do this.
As I say, we are on track for that, and we expect these to be brought into force in the coming year.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
The Chair: If I’m right, you’re just buying a little extra time here to make that happen.
Mr. Wagdin: Essentially. Our plan was to be able to get a Treasury Board meeting this calendar year. We haven’t been able to effectively get a Treasury Board meeting this calendar year. As soon as we’re able to get on the agenda, we should be good.
The Chair: We probably won’t see you back on this one next year.
Mr. Wagdin: Not on this one.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wagdin.
Senator Simons: I had a question about item 24, the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea.
The Chair: We will invite Mr. Marier to join us, and then you can pose your question, Senator Simons.
Senator Simons: This is not going to come into force until the convention comes into force internationally. Is this going to be like the nuclear test ban in that it will never come into force? Who else is party to this, and when do you expect it might come into force?
François Marier, Director, International Marine Policy, Transport Canada: Thank you for the question.
Since 2014, we have made significant progress on that. There are three conditions that need to be met. One of the conditions has already been met. We now have eight states that have ratified, including Canada. We need 12 states. The other big condition is that we need a certain number of states to have received a certain amount of hazardous and noxious substances.
Senator Simons: When you say you need 12, does that mean you need 4 in addition to the 8, or that you need 12?
Mr. Marier: Yes. Four more.
Senator Simons: Who has already ratified, and who are you hoping to invite to the party?
Mr. Marier: The countries that have already ratified are Canada, France, Norway, Denmark, South Africa, South Africa, Türkiye, Estonia and Slovakia.
Senator Simons: I don’t imagine Slovakia has a big maritime economy.
Mr. Marier: No, it does not. We did get some very good news less than a month ago. There is a group of five European states that are significant importers of hazardous goods, with large ports, and they have all committed in writing that they will be ratifying the convention in 2025, which will then start the clock, the 18-month countdown to the entry into force, which means 2027.
Senator Simons: Very good. Can you tell us who those five countries are, or is that secret?
Mr. Marier: I can tell you. They are Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden.
Senator Simons: Okay. Then you have got —
Mr. Marier: Then you would have, for example, the Port of Rotterdam, which is the largest port for chemicals in Europe.
Senator Simons: That is happy news. Thank you.
The Chair: Are there other questions or comments?
I think this concludes our review and consideration of all of the items. We have a few things to vote on, colleagues, but before we do, let me extend my thanks generally and on behalf of all of the committee to all of our witnesses for taking the time to be here and answering our questions. I think it’s fair to say that our concerns are not always directed personally but institutionally at some of the frustrations we might have expressed regarding the pace at which matters move through the system. We realize those are not always under your personal control.
Colleagues, we are mandated to produce a report back to the chamber by December 5. I hope we might be able to produce a brief report that would include a short summary of who was invited and what was heard, and it would be useful to have an analyst include a short explanation about the act. We have been assisted in that regard significantly by Senator LaBoucane-Benson and the work she provided to us.
I would now like to open the floor for discussion in anticipation, firstly, of an adoption of the report, but also that we may have some observations to make. Could I invite interventions? Have I summed up where we would mainly like to go? Then the real question will be the crispness of those observations. Is that seeming like a suitable direction?
Senator Batters: First of all, I want to say that, yes, obviously, the people who sat here as officials are not the ones that are responsible for 19 years of delays. However, these are the people that the Government of Canada chooses to send here to answer those questions. When we express frustration, who else would we express that frustration to?
I don’t think we should be apologetic. I think everyone acted professionally. There are serious reasons for this frustration when we’re dealing with some of the issues that we’re talking about here. For example, in that one with procurement issues, this government has continued for nine years to have scandals dealing with procurement issues, and yet we have major holes that exist in things like this that should have been so easily done.
Obviously, I want to see something in this report about the legitimate reasons for major frustration with this and that we continue to see these things come up again and again, including things that seem to us to be not really needing years and years, in some cases a couple of decades, for these types of situations. That’s the main point I would like to make on that.
Senator Tannas: This has been fascinating for me. This is my first time doing this. We have only done it twice. I think we used to just let this report go. This was one of these box-checking exercises. The pesky Senate put this bill into place because one senator said that what was going on was nuts. We have all these bills, and they don’t get enacted, like the Yale First Nation. But there is a reasonable explanation for it, and that’s fine.
The point is this: I think we saw some good examples and had great explanations, but we saw some that I think raised the spectre of purposeful obstruction of what Parliament wanted. We have a whole other committee for this, and if you ever want to get your eyes opened, go to Scrutiny of Regulations, which is basically a group of lawyers for the government, or within the bureaucracy but they are by themselves, who go through the regulations and match them to the legislation and find dozens upon dozens of situations where the regulations don’t match the legislation. Then we start a letter-writing program with them about the regulations. There are certain departments that appear exponentially more often than others, and some of them here felt like déjà vu.
We should put something in the report that says that we are concerned that there may be, in certain instances, some kind of institutional, bureaucratic, whatever, suppression of the will of Parliament, and we need to be vigilant. That’s all.
The Chair: Are there other comments?
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Yes, I have a comment. What fascinates me is the experience of my colleagues who are not lawyers, but who have in-depth knowledge of the institution. I’d like to say a big thank you to those who know the legislative world like lawyers do.
I feel that, when you have a bill on which you work, you put resources into it, you study it, you mobilize, it ends up making its way and it is passed or not. It’s lucky that there’s a team looking at what’s being done to make sure there’s some consistency with the Charter and the Constitution, for example.
At the same time, I think the complexity comes from the fact that, when there’s a change of government, these are people who have moved a bill forward, and it may still be passed, but I realize that some bills, a number of them, even, have not been honoured, and nothing is moving.
What can we do, as legislators, to ensure that, regardless of the government in place, there is accountability, so that the legislation that has been passed is actually implemented? We are sometimes told that this is due to a lack of human resources or infrastructure. That also has an impact. How can we ensure that legislation is enforced once it has been passed?
Is the political side under pressure, or is someone not telling us everything? Bills are passed, but perhaps we should have waited, as the necessary budget is not there. What I’m trying to say is complicated, but it’s surprising to see that a bill was passed in 2013, for example, and it still hasn’t been implemented. It’s even worse when it dates back to 2009.
I really learned a lot today. How can we be better for the next bills we have to study?
Senator Moreau: I am in the first exercise of applying this provision of the Statutes Repeal Act, and I was looking at the reasons that we were reminded of at the beginning of our work that give an opening to the application of these provisions.
I am thinking in particular of two of the cases we have considered this morning. They are cases that do not meet any criteria other than that of a request for additional time that is necessary to process the cases.
How can we justify asking for an extension when we’re talking about 10, 15 or 20 years? At some point, this criterion will no longer mean anything. My fear, and I am expressing it now that this is my first exercise examining this provision of the Statutes Repeal Act, is that we are endorsing — and I am weighing my words carefully — as members of the Senate, the intention to circumvent the spirit of a law passed by both houses, by the administration. This is certainly not the objective that was pursued when this provision was brought into force.
I have the impression, as some of my colleagues, including Senator Batters, recommend, that we should have comments at the end of the report to indicate that, among the reasons, the one relating to the additional period requires much greater clarification than we were able to obtain this morning. Otherwise, a department could always justify a request not to repeal a provision 50 years after the law was passed. And who are we to say that the mere passage of time does not justify repealing the provision?
I agree with Senator Batters: The people who are suggested to us to answer our questions should be able to anticipate, when it comes to time frames that exceed 10 years, that our questions will be much more specific and perhaps even insidious, and to tell us what the consequences of not acting on these provisions are in certain cases.
As you pointed out, this will happen in certain cases where, if the obligation is not complied with, the situation will become even more chaotic than it is now. That is certainly not our intention. On the other hand, we can’t just approve anything without any discussion, either, as that is unjustifiable.
[English]
The Chair: I know we are pressed for time, but let me make this observation: The people who are meeting before us are officially accountable, not to us but to more senior people in the executive. It seems to me we ought to communicate a message that we would like more senior people from the executive to provide more fulsome explanations of the reasons, particularly, for delays and years of consultations and the like. In that respect, the obligation is actually up the chain of command within the executive, all the way up to deputy ministers and ministers, for accountability to move these things along or explain why they are not moving along. I think that is a useful message.
I accept Senator Batters’ frustration that we did not get very good answers to a number of questions. We got some very good answers to some that Senator Tannas asked, and that is helpful; otherwise, things we would like to know about, we would never know. It is a big government. We cannot expect to turn over every rock in every dimension of the government, but this is a helpful process in that respect.
It is a message, I think, that there needs to be senior communication of accountability. These folks are accountable to us for two hours a year, and the rest of the time, they are accountable inside the department. We should hear from the more senior people as to why those accountabilities are not being fulfilled.
I think we should also communicate a message along the lines, if I may — and I am going to invite a little bit of work that could go to steering to craft a report that includes the message that some of the answers were unacceptable, and the delays are unacceptable, and they need to be more fully accounted to within the executive and, ultimately, to us.
I don’t know exactly how we will fashion it, but if you are comfortable with a message along those lines, we would try to put something together and invite steering to look at it and share it with you ever so briefly next Wednesday, December 4, at our meeting, because we have to get this into the Senate on December 5. Is that an acceptable way of proceeding?
Senator Tannas: We don’t have a meeting next Wednesday, right?
The Chair: I think we do. It is December 4? I think we are not cancelled. We are not subject to that cancel culture stuff. Yes.
Senator Batters, are you okay with that as an approach? I would welcome you, if you are inclined, to draft a paragraph or so that could be shared among the steering folks. We will invite some work to be done for steering to consider and have something for you to look at next Wednesday.
Senator Batters: First of all, yes, on that point about how it is not just the administrative branch that is responsible for these issues, ultimately, they receive their direction from the executive branch, of course.
I equate it a little bit to what Senator Tannas mentioned about the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. I used to be the co-chair of that committee from 2013-15 in the last government. At that time, we had regular meetings. They were two hours long, every two weeks, like clockwork, and we did serious work. It was a regular accountability session for some of these departments that had taken years to respond to letters and things like that.
What I have seen happen — because I have followed the work of that committee a little bit over the last nine years — is sometimes that committee has gone weeks and months without ever having one meeting. Sometimes they have one or two meetings in the course of an entire Parliament, basically to elect a co-chair so that person, I guess, can start receiving a paycheque. Then they don’t have any other meetings for months. That is not appropriate, and that is important work that is done there that impacts on these types of things.
What is sometimes done, when our government was in power and in the early stages soon after that, was that if there were —
The Chair: It was actually my government, too, Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: Yes, I meant the Conservative government at the time.
When there were particular departments that were tardy as a routine course in responding, the ultimate sanction was that that Scrutiny of Regulations Committee would potentially even call a deputy minister before the committee to testify about it. If we find that we are having, in the course of these types of reports, ongoing — like, year after year, there are certain branches that are really needing significant attention or have it brought home to them, that is an option that could be available to us as well.
The last comment I wanted to make is that Senator Audette made a comment about perhaps this is a lack of human resources. Maybe it is a matter of they are not allocating the human resources, but also, the current federal government has increased their human resource component by tens of thousands of people, so it cannot be an overall lack of human resources. Perhaps they are just not allocating it to these types of issues.
The Chair: May I say with respect to —
Senator Audette: I want to clarify something. I am learning so much with Senator Batters, and I want to make sure that I am understanding. I thought I heard it was a lack of human resources from one of the witnesses. Okay? Thank you.
The Chair: I was a deputy minister for a dozen years in a provincial government, and it seemed to me that is where the accountability lies. I’m in sympathy with Senator Batters’ observation that if we are seeing a pattern like this, I would urge the committee to communicate the message that for the next exercise, we should hear from perhaps not every deputy minister but ones where there are recalcitrant activities in a government department.
Senator Simons: They’re caught between a rock and a hard place. What can they say to us?
The Chair: Fair enough.
I will invite one vote — I am sorry. I thought that you were —
Senator Arnot: I will be short. I wonder if the steering committee, if we are really serious about this, should have a little more rigour for the accountability you are asking for. Maybe we should be meeting a couple of times a year on this so that you stagger it. If there is a problem, you give them a chance and they can come back on a second occasion. We are kind of at the end of the line here. It is the eleventh hour, almost. I think accountability would be much better served if we identify the issue and perhaps consider having a meeting in June or May or September and then in December. I am really looking to the steering committee to determine that. If you want to be rigorous about it and more accountable, I think there is a way to force that.
Senator Batters: Isn’t this connected, though, with a motion, and that is the reason that we are having this, right?
The Chair: Exactly.
Senator Batters: That is why it is a yearly thing, because it is connected with a motion, and I think they only bring those —
Senator Tannas: A motion by whom?
Senator Batters: The government.
The Chair: We need the report to study, and we tend to get it late in the year.
Senator Arnot: We do not control that.
The Chair: Not yet.
Could I invite the adoption of one motion, colleagues, and it is specifically, if I may say this — is it agreed that we adopt the report but append observations to it?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
I would be more comfortable next Wednesday with the whole committee having a look at what we might have by way of observations, so we won’t have a vote on blessing the steering committee with finalizing it. We will vote on me tabling the report when we meet next Wednesday.
That concludes all of the business for today. Thank you for hanging in there so long. It is always a learning experience and, sometimes, a frustrating one. Thank you, all.
(The committee adjourned.)