THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 5, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met with videoconference this day at 6:49 p.m. [ET] to examine all of the subject matter of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.
Senator Claude Carignan (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.
As much as possible, ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones. Only use a black approved earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose.
Thank you all for your cooperation.
Welcome to all of the senators, as well as the viewers across the country watching us on sencanada.ca.
My name is Claude Carignan, senator from Quebec and chair of the Senate Committee on National Finance. I will now ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting from my right.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Ross: Krista Ross, New Brunswick.
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Kingston: Joan Kingston, New Brunswick.
Senator Pate: I’m Kim Pate. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
Senator Loffreda: Welcome. Senator Tony Loffreda from Montreal, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond, De Lorimier senatorial division in Quebec.
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec. Welcome.
Senator Gignac: Clément Gignac, De Kennebec senatorial division in Quebec.
Senator Forest: Éric Forest, Gulf senatorial division in Quebec. Good evening.
The Chair: Thank you, dear colleagues.
Today, we continue our study on all the subject matter of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, referred to this committee by the Senate of Canada on May 9, 2024.
Today, we have the pleasure of welcoming high-level officials from seven different departments.
Welcome to you all, and thank you for accepting our invitation to testify before the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
My understanding is that one or two officials from each department will make statements, and the others will help answer questions.
Therefore, to save time, I ask you to introduce yourselves before making your statement and to introduce yourselves when answering questions.
We will start with Employment and Social Development Canada. We also have representatives from Health Canada; Justice Canada; Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; the Canada Border Services Agency; Correctional Service Canada and Canadian Heritage.
Welcome to you all. I give you the floor.
Christina Norris, Director General, Canada Education Savings Program, Employment and Social Development Canada: Thank you very much for your invitation to appear before you this evening. My name is Christina Norris. I am the Director General of the Canada Education Savings Program at Employment and Social Development Canada.
[English]
I’ll be providing an overview of six divisions of Part 4 of the budget implementation act, which are Divisions 3, 4, 5, 14, 23 and 43.
Division 3 of Part 4 of the bill would enable the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development to enter into bilateral agreements with provinces and territories and to transfer funding to them for the purposes of the national school food program as early as the 2024-25 school year.
The government committed $1 billion over five years to create the program, which will increase access to school meals for up to 400,000 additional children to help reduce food insecurity.
Division 4 of Part 4 of the bill would amend the Canada Student Loans Act and the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to permanently add a list of occupations as eligible for student loan forgiveness, and to give the Governor-in-Council the authority to make regulations to define these occupations, which are the following: early childhood educator, dentist, dental hygienist, pharmacist, midwife, teacher, social worker, personal support worker, physiotherapist and psychologist. This measure would build on existing loan forgiveness for family doctors and nurses to address health care shortages in rural and remote communities.
Division 5 of Part 4 of the bill would amend the Canada Education Savings Act to introduce automatic enrolment in the Canada Learning Bond and extend the age limit to apply for the benefit. Also included is an authority for the Governor-in-Council to make regulations for the administration of these measures.
The Canada Learning Bond provides up to $2,000 into a Registered Education Savings Plan account of children who have experienced low income. Automatic enrolment is a long-term solution to the low take-up of the Canada Learning Bond. Children born in 2024 or later would benefit, with first accounts automatically being opened in 2028.
Division 14 of Part 4 of the bill would amend the Canada Pension Plan, or CPP, reflecting the agreement in principle reached by Canada’s ministers of finance as part of their 2022-24 Triennial Review of the Canada Pension Plan. There are six measures: First, a top-up of $2,500 to the death benefit will be paid in cases where no other CPP benefit, with the exception of the orphan’s benefit, has been paid in respect of the deceased contributor’s contributions; second, a new child’s benefit for dependent children aged 18 to 24 will be paid to those who are in part-time attendance at school; third, eligibility for the disabled contributor’s child’s benefit will be maintained in cases where a disabled contributor reaches age 65; fourth, the CPP’s incapacity provisions will be extended to protect the date of application for a disabled contributor’s child’s benefit; fifth, entitlement to the survivor’s pension will be precluded in cases where an individual has received a credit split in respect of their deceased separated spouse; and, sixth, the determination of the payee of the disabled contributor’s child’s benefit will be clarified, using terminology that mirrors that of the Divorce Act.
Division 23 of Part 4 of the bill would amend the Employment Insurance Act to extend — until October 24, 2026 — the end date of the current temporary Employment Insurance, or EI, legislated measures that provide additional weeks of EI regular benefits to workers in seasonal employment in specific EI economic regions. This would provide workers up to five additional weeks of EI regular benefits to a maximum entitlement of 45 weeks in their off-season.
Division 43 of Part 4 of the bill would amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act, or DESDA, to provide authority to the Social Security Tribunal of Canada to hear appeals of decisions made under the Canada Disability Benefit Act. DESDA would also be amended to require that the Social Security Tribunal refer income-related appeals made under the Canada Disability Benefit Act to the Tax Court of Canada. This division would also amend the Tax Court of Canada Act to give the Tax Court of Canada jurisdiction to hear income-related appeals, and to provide that applications for judicial review of Social Security Tribunal decisions relating to extensions of time for making requests for reconsiderations go to the Federal Court rather than to the Federal Court of Appeal.
I will now turn the floor to my colleague who will speak to the Canada Labour Code and other related measures.
Douglas Wolfe, Director General, Policy Development and Legislative Reform, Labour Program, Employment and Social Development Canada: Good evening. I will be speaking this evening about changes to two different divisions. I’ll start with the gig workers’ provision.
Division 21 of Part 4 of the bill amends the Canada Labour Code to strengthen job protections for gig workers, as promised in the Minister of Labour’s 2021 mandate letter and in Budget 2023.
Many gig workers, including digital platform workers in the federally regulated private sector, should be considered employees, but are misclassified as independent contractors which denies them labour rights and entitlements. Amendments to the code would strengthen existing misclassification provisions. They would introduce a presumption of employee status. Workers would be presumed to be employees unless proven otherwise, but true self-employed entrepreneurs could assert their independent status.
The government would also add existing prohibitions on misclassification to other parts of the Canada Labour Code, and amendments would strengthen the existing prohibition on misclassification in Part III of the code by removing an enforcement requirement to prove that the employer intended to misclassify an employee. These amendments would ensure that misclassification is prohibited under any circumstance.
Division 22 of Part 4 of the bill would amend the Canada Labour Code to require federally regulated private sector employers to issue a policy stating the employer’s expectations for work-related communication outside of scheduled hours of work and any opportunity for employees to disconnect. This policy meets the Minister of Labour’s 2021 mandate letter commitment.
We know that evidence shows that disconnecting from work is critical to well-being and productivity. The right to disconnect policies can reduce the informal expectation that employees must remain constantly connected, while maintaining the flexibility that employers need to keep the economy moving.
The proposed amendments would also require employers to review and update the policy every three years, to consult with employees or unions when developing or updating the policy, and to keep records of the policy and consultations.
This division would make other targeted amendments to the code, including two technical changes to correct errors in Part II of the Canada Labour Code, as well as changes to ensure that all employees whose employment is terminated by their employer are entitled to termination and severance pay if they meet existing eligibility requirements. Thank you very much.
Celia Lourenco, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Products and Food Branch, Health Canada: Good evening. I am joined by David Lee, Chief Regulatory Officer, Health Products and Food Branch.
[Translation]
We are here to speak with you about Division 31, which proposes a certain number of amendments to the Food and Drugs Act.
Health Canada is the federal regulator responsible for ensuring the safety, efficacy and quality of therapeutic products such as drugs and medical devices, as well as food.
While Canada’s regulations governing the sale of these products work well in most cases, situations can arise where it is necessary to tailor our regulatory approach to ensure that people in Canada have access to the products they need.
[English]
The budget implementation act proposes three key amendments, which will provide the Minister of Health with new authorities to do the following: first, put in place targeted exemptions from specific regulatory requirements for therapeutic products or food, adding conditions, as appropriate, to ensure that health and safety standards are met; second, rely on information or decisions from select regulatory authorities to satisfy specific regulatory requirements; and, third, put in place supplementary rules for certain therapeutic products to protect against potential health risks or adverse effects, while maintaining access to these products for those who need them.
The budget implementation act also proposes three other more technical amendments: expand existing regulation-making authorities for shortages to include foods for a special dietary purpose; streamline the process of updating performance standards documents incorporated by reference; and address inconsistencies between the English and French definition of “drug.”
The new authorities will improve regulatory flexibility and adaptability while maintaining Health Canada’s rigorous scientific standards for therapeutic products and food. It will make a difference for Canadians and their families in very real ways.
For example, the legislation would allow us to respond more effectively during shortages of important products, such as infant formula. It would also allow us to take action to protect Canadians from potential harms associated with unintended use of therapeutic products, such as keeping nicotine replacement products out of the hands of youth.
I would like to assure senators that this legislation is not intended to do the following: ban, block or reduce the availability of the products that Canadians rely on; bypass Health Canada’s stringent scientific approval processes; or regulate in any way the ability of health professionals to direct the treatments that they believe are best for their patients.
[Translation]
This bill would simply ensure that Health Canada has the regulatory tools it needs to facilitate access to safe, high quality and effective health products and food.
Mr. Chair, I now give the floor to my colleague Aysha Mawani, who will provide an overview of the amendments to Divisions 32 and 44. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Aysha Mawani, Director General, Controlled Substances and Overdose Response Directorate, Health Canada: Good evening.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today.
[English]
I am joined today by Sonia Johnson, Director General of the Tobacco Control Directorate within the Controlled Substances and Cannabis Branch at Health Canada; and Jennifer Pelley, Director, Controlled Substances and Overdose Response Directorate within the Controlled Substances and Cannabis Branch at Health Canada.
I am here to speak with you about Division 44 of Part 4 of the bill, which proposes a number of amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and Division 32 of Part 4 of the bill, which proposes a number of amendments to the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act.
I will start with the proposed amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
Supervised consumption and drug checking services are an important evidence-based part of Canada’s comprehensive public health response to addressing substance use harms and the overdose crisis.
Data reported to Health Canada indicates that between January 2017 to October 2023, supervised consumption sites in Canada received over 4.4 million visits, responded to over 53,000 non-fatal overdoses and made over 424,000 referrals to health and social services.
Currently, supervised consumption sites and drug checking services legally operate pursuant to a ministerial exemption under section 56.1 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Applications under section 56.1 are considered on a case-by-case basis.
The proposed amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act would do three things:
First, current regulation-making authorities would be amended to allow for the development of a proposed new regulatory scheme with clear and predictable regulatory requirements to provide more stability and transparency for service operators, while maintaining strict controls that are consistent with the public health and public safety objectives of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
Second, section 56.1 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and related provisions would be repealed on a date to be fixed by order of the Governor-in-Council. This ensures that Health Canada can continue to grant section 56.1 exemptions to service operators until such a time as the new regulatory scheme has been developed.
Third, transitional provisions will ensure that even once section 56.1 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act has been repealed, all existing sites can continue to operate until their exemptions expire. At that point, operators would apply for an authorization under the new regulatory scheme.
Should the legislative changes be adopted, Health Canada would engage in consultations with provincial, territorial, community and Indigenous partners, as well as service operators, people with lived and living experience, law enforcement and other interested parties, to make sure all views are considered in the development of the new regulatory scheme.
[Translation]
I will now speak about the proposed amendments to the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act.
[English]
These amendments would support the tobacco and vaping cost recovery frameworks that are currently being proposed in the Fall Economic Statement implementation act, 2023. The implementation of these cost recovery frameworks would help minimize the cost burden on taxpayers of funding federal tobacco and vaping activities.
The proposed amendments under this bill would enhance the sharing of information related to tobacco and vaping products across the federal government.
These amendments would support the administration and enforcement of the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act. Specifically, if the cost recovery provisions in the Fall Economic Statement implementation act are adopted, we would be able to validate information received from tobacco and vaping manufacturers. This information would be used to calculate the fees or charges to be paid.
The amendments would authorize the Canada Border Services Agency to provide Health Canada certain customs information collected under the Customs Act, and enable Health Canada to disclose information collected under the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act with other federal departments and agencies. This would make it possible to verify compliance with other federal legislation, such as the Customs Act and the Excise Act.
The budget implementation act also proposes a technical amendment regarding documents, such as forms, developed by Health Canada in relation to future cost recovery-related regulations.
The provision in the Fall Economic Statement implementation act, if adopted, would provide flexibility and increased efficiency for the implementation of the proposed cost recovery framework.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you.
Marie-Josée Poirier, Counsel, Judicial Affairs Section, Department of Justice Canada: Good evening. My name is Marie-Josée Poirier, and with me is my colleague Anna Dekker. We are both lawyers for the Judicial Affairs Section of the Department of Justice Canada. We are here to speak with you and answer your questions with respect to Part 4 in Division 29 of the bill. This division contains clause 320, which amends two paragraphs of the Judges Act that include 17 judicial salaries originally authorized in Budget 2018 for the section on unified family courts, specifically section 24(4) of the Judges Act, and repurposes them to the section on general trial courts, specifically section 24(3)(b). This will allow the Minister of Justice to reallocate judicial resources to any superior trial courts in Canada in a way that will respond to requests for judicial resources and demonstrated need. Judges appointed pursuant to section 24(3)(b) can hear a variety of matters, including criminal, civil and family law matters.
I will now give the floor to my colleague, who will speak to you about another measure for the Department of Justice.
Daniel Bourgeois, Tax Law Services Portfolio, Department of Justice Canada: I will speak to you about clause 321 of Division 30 in the bill, which amends subsection 17.1 of the Tax Court of Canada. This provision deals with the way a party to a proceeding under the general procedure of the Tax Court of Canada may be represented before the court. The amendment states that the Tax Court of Canada may, under special circumstances, allow a party who is not an individual to be represented before the court by a person who is not authorized to practise as a lawyer as long as they are a member of their organization, such as a director, an officer, an employee, and so on.
This amendment became necessary after a decision by the Federal Court of Appeal, which found that the current provision allowing a party to appear in person before the court could only apply to an individual, and not to a body corporate or a company. Therefore, the court had no power, under any circumstance, to allow a company to be represented by one of its employees, for example, when it did not have the financial capacity to pay for legal representation.
This amendment thereby corrects the effect of this decision by specifically providing that the Tax Court of Canada has this power, and harmonizes its powers with those of other federal courts.
Jason Hollmann, Director General, Asylum Policy Branch, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Good evening. I am Jason Hollmann, Director General of the Asylum Policy Branch. I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to be part of its study of the Budget Implementation Act. We welcome the opportunity to outline some of the important proposed legislative amendments that will help facilitate an effective, efficient and fair asylum system, in line with Canada’s international commitment to the protection of refugees.
[English]
Canada’s asylum system reflects our international obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol outlining the legal protections and rights of refugees.
Despite a considerable increase in forced displacement worldwide, Canada remains committed to upholding a fair and compassionate refugee protection system, and aiding those in need of protection. Canada delivers on its commitment to protect individuals at risk of persecution in two main ways. The first is the refugee resettlement program that provides protection to people who are outside of Canada. In this program, refugees are identified primarily by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or by private sponsors in Canada, and are selected for resettlement and screened overseas, and then obtain permanent resident status upon arrival.
The second program — which is the subject of the proposed legislative changes under consideration today — is the in‑Canada asylum system. The in-Canada asylum system works to provide refugee protection to people already in Canada who have a well-founded fear of persecution or the potential threat of torture or cruel punishment in their home countries. Through the in-Canada asylum system, individuals who arrive at a Canadian port of entry, or who are already in Canada, can apply for refugee protection.
Eligible claims are then referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, an independent administrative tribunal, for decision. The federal government provides claimants with work permits so that they can support themselves while their claims are pending, as well as access to interim federal health coverage and some funding for interim accommodations.
In recent years, the in-Canada asylum system has been strained by a surge in asylum claims, leading to lengthy processing times and backlogs, and resulting in prolonged uncertainty for applicants. While a number of measures have been put in place to address the recent surge in asylum claims — including the Additional Protocol to the Safe Third Country Agreement last spring, as well as the visa policy change related to Mexico in February of this year — we continue to experience an increase in asylum claims. This has meant that thousands of claimants are facing long wait times at multiple points in the process.
The proposed legislative changes are aimed at addressing the challenges faced by the in-Canada asylum system through the introduction of system-wide efficiencies and client service enhancement measures. These legislative amendments aim to address bottlenecks across the system by simplifying and streamlining the claim process in support of enhanced program integrity and faster processing of claims. The changes introduced in the package will make the system faster, more efficient and simpler for those in need of Canada’s protection, and help ensure a clearer process for applicants — one where they only need to tell us their information once.
In the current system, claimants must complete multiple documents as part of their application. In addition, documents are different depending upon whether the claim is made at an official port of entry or at an inland office.
The proposed changes will require online submission of applications to streamline the intake process, while maintaining paper-based forms under exceptional circumstances beyond the applicant’s control and for accessibility. Applicants will submit all of their information, including the basis of their claim, in one place through a single online application, and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada will be able to provide the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada with the information in a complete package, ready for a hearing.
This supports a client-friendly, “tell-us-once” approach. These changes will also result in operational and program efficiency to allow only hearing-ready, complete packages to be sent to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. This will ensure that postponements and rescheduling of hearings are minimized, and that the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada can move cases forward in the most expedient way possible. In the end, it creates operational efficiency and transparency for the claimant.
Additional changes will also provide the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada with the authority to require their members to use prescribed tools and formats to render decisions and reasons, again helping to result in faster decisions received by claimants. In addition, changes are proposed to allow for the appointment of designated representatives to support those who may not be able to understand the process at various stages of the asylum system, such as for pre-removal risk assessment.
The legislation will also change the way removal orders are issued. Today, they are issued at the beginning of the process to all those making a claim, but they are not enforced until the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada makes a negative decision. Going forward, removal orders will only be issued after the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada rejects a claim or declares it withdrawn or abandoned, eliminating this time-consuming process.
Our objective is to ensure that claimants today will receive the same decision after these changes, but, hopefully, they will receive it faster, with fewer duplications in requests for information.
I would like to point out that these legislative changes are not changing the eligibility requirements for claimants. The government’s goal is to adapt the system to today’s realities and prepare it for tomorrow, addressing the volumes and improving efficiency and enhancing service for claimants.
Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you.
Carl Desmarais, Director General, Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency: I am Carl Desmarais, Director General and head of Inland Enforcement at the Canada Border Services Agency. I am here to discuss Division 39 of the bill.
[English]
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for having me and my colleague from Correctional Service Canada, or CSC, to discuss particular provisions that are of interest to you today.
The Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, is legislatively obligated under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to remove inadmissible persons as soon as possible. Immigration detention in this context is a necessary tool and backstop to assist the enforcement of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to ensure the integrity of Canada’s immigration program as a whole and to support the government’s public safety responsibilities.
[Translation]
In order to meet its obligations, the CBSA uses immigration detention as a measure of last resort, and only once all appropriate alternatives to detention have been considered.
The Alternatives to Detention Program allows individuals to remain in the community with the support of their family, or support obtained through a service provider specializing in community services.
[English]
Currently, 98.6% of individuals subject to immigration enforcement controls are on an alternative to detention, with the other 1.4% being held in detention.
While the CBSA continues to expand the use of alternatives to detention, there will always remain individuals who engage in serious criminal activities or conduct that does not allow for them to be effectively managed on an alternative to detention within the community.
[Translation]
Individuals who pose no security risk and who have demonstrated an ability to comply with immigration enforcement procedures may be released under an alternative to detention pending next steps of the process, whether it be an investigation or a removal from Canada.
[English]
For those individuals deemed not suitable for release on an alternative to detention, the decision that leads to their placement in an immigration holding centre or provincial correctional facility is based on assessment of their risk to others. Currently, over 80% of the immigration detainees being held in provincial correctional facilities have been convicted or have outstanding charges for serious and violent criminality. This includes crimes that involve assault, sexual assault, murder and armed robbery.
It is an individual’s conduct — and not the mere presence of a criminal record — that determines whether they can be safely managed within an immigration holding centre. In making placement decisions, officers need to consider the safety of other detainees whose well-being could be jeopardized by the presence of a higher-risk individual who cannot be safely managed within an immigration holding centre as they are currently designed.
The CBSA has worked for many years with provincial partners to have individuals assessed as high-risk be held in provincial correctional facilities. However, as we know, the provinces are no longer willing to support immigration detention in their facilities.
[Translation]
Since 2023, the CBSA has been undertaking measures to enhance the infrastructure of its current immigration holding centres, as well as making modifications to operations and staffing to accommodate individuals assessed as posing a risk to the public, other detainees, or CBSA personnel. Additional training and tools are being deployed to ensure staff are equipped to process high-risk immigration detainees. The number of trained guards under contract at immigration holding centres will be increased to ensure the ongoing security of detainees and employees. In the interim, a solution is required to safely house a small number of high-risk detainees currently being held in provincial correctional facilities.
[English]
The enactment of the proposed legislative amendments would give the CBSA access to purpose-built facilities to house a small number of high-risk detainees who have been historically managed in provincial correctional facilities.
More specifically, the amendments would allow the CBSA to get temporary assistance from CSC by providing separately and independently managed space for the CBSA to house a low number of higher-risk immigration detainees. The agreement between the two organizations would therefore allow the CBSA to use CSC infrastructure, seek limited administrative services from CSC if required and, in exceptional circumstances only, seek the assistance of CSC personnel.
[Translation]
The intent of any assistance arrangement would be for the CBSA to continue operating and staffing its detention spaces, completely independently of correctional services and any federal inmates in its care and custody.
[English]
The proposed legislation limits the use of these facilities for persons posing a risk to others while, at the same time, enshrining procedural fairness measures and health considerations that ensure the facilities are truly used as a measure of last resort for the highest-risk individuals. To be clear, this is a temporary measure of last resort for a small number of individuals during a period of transition while the CBSA makes upgrades to their immigration holding centres.
When detention is deemed necessary to manage high risk and maintain public safety, the CBSA remains committed to ensuring that all detainees are treated in a consistent, dignified and humane way that is in line with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our international obligations and commitments.
I will emphasize that the changes being contemplated as part of this particular legislative proposal do not change the authorities of the CBSA and how it maintains detention. That is a scheme that remains unchanged.
Thank you for your attention.
[Translation]
We would be pleased to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Desmarais. Mr. Bisson, you have the floor.
Luc Bisson, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Policy, Correctional Service Canada: Honourable senators, thank you for welcoming us this evening. I am Luc Bisson, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Policy, Correctional Service Canada. I would be pleased to answer your questions this evening. My colleague already provided a good summary of the measures, so I will come back to you in a few minutes if you have questions. I give the floor to my colleague.
Sarah Boily, Director General, Official Languages, Canadian Heritage: I am Sarah Boily, Director General of Official Languages at Canadian Heritage.
An amendment is proposed to Division 24 of Part 4 of Bill C-69 to make amendments to section 61 of the Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages and subsection 19(1) of the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act. The purpose of this amendment is to correct an omission in order to preserve rights for all categories of employees. We are talking about current employees, potential employees and former employees. We are talking about their right to file a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages or to take legal action if they feel their rights have not been respected under the new Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act.
The way the scheme was designed, it would come into effect first in Quebec and then, two years after its anniversary, in regions with a strong francophone presence.
In the wording, when they come into force in Quebec, rights are provided for the three categories of employees I mentioned earlier. However, when the scheme comes into force in regions with a strong francophone presence, as currently worded, the rights apply only to current employees. The intent was not to exclude potential employees or former employees.
This explains the proposed amendment.
The Chair: That’s very clear. Thank you very much. We can begin the round of questions. We have a variety of topics, and therefore many questions.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Thank you. I will start with Employment and Social Development Canada. My question is for Mr. Wolfe or Ms. Norris. I want to talk about Division 5 of Part 4 of the bill and the automatic enrolment of children in the Canada Learning Bond. I have three specific questions.
I would like to know why there is a wait time of five years. There is $150 million provided in the fifth year, so I am wondering why it is such a lengthy wait time.
There is $12 million in the first four years. I wonder what that money is for. Is there a plan with regard to that $12 million?
Lastly, what is the basis for the $150 million? I saw somewhere it’s up to $2,000 per child. If you could address those three issues, that would be great. Thank you.
Ms. Norris: Of course. Thank you for the questions.
It’s true that there is an implementation period for automatically enrolling children in the Canada Learning Bond. What I would like to clarify is that the children who are eligible begins this year in 2024. What we are doing is communicating with parents and caregivers in 2024 to inform them that an account for their child would be automatically opened. Our intention is to give parents and caregivers enough of a period of time to open accounts on their own. There is still a belief that parents are best placed to open Registered Education Savings Plans for their children. Our data shows that there is an uptick in enrolment, as young children typically enter the school system across provinces at around age four. So that is one objective.
The other objective is this: In order to deliver this initiative, we will be partnering with a financial institution — one of our 85 partners across the country — and we will be engaging in a consultation and request for proposal process to build the systems needed to do the data exchange and make the payments.
The $12 million that you referenced includes a variety of costs, including costs for systems development and staff to build, design and manage the proposal, and for communication activities to parents and children across the country. It also includes potential funds that could be used to pay a financial institution to help administer the program with us.
About your final question regarding the $150 million, those estimates come from statutory costs that we’re expecting children to save. We have a very robust data set that we received from the Canada Revenue Agency, looking at the number of children eligible to receive the benefit. Our estimate shows that about 170,000 children a year will be automatically enrolled in the benefit. The first payment for the benefit is $500 and then $100 per year of eligibility up to a lifetime maximum of $2,000. These statutory costs are estimates based on modelling of our existing data and population projections.
Senator Marshall: Why the four years? I’m just looking at the dollar amounts: $1 million, $2 million, $5 million, $4 million. They’re relatively small amounts compared to federal government spending. Why would it take four years to develop the system? That seems not very productive.
Ms. Norris: I think there are multiple objectives. The primary objective for that delay — as I mentioned — is to ensure we do a good job communicating with parents and children. We’re trying to balance the policy objective with delivering this service automatically, while ensuring that parents and children have plenty of time to make decisions themselves about these accounts. We know there is a challenge with awareness and promotion with the Canada Learning Bond.
An important feature of the account is that the funds apply retroactively so that children — when they apply — are eligible to receive every year of benefit historically available to them.
Senator Marshall: I also have a question on Division 4 of Part 4 of the bill, which is expanding the Canada Student Loans Act and the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to expand eligibility to certain types of positions.
Why were those positions selected?
Ms. Norris: Thank you for the question. My colleague joining us virtually — the Director General for the Canada Student Financial Assistance Program — will be able to respond.
Senator Marshall: Before we start, I would also like to know why it’s those positions, and what the objectives are. Is it to create a certain number of positions?
Okay, Mr. Wallace, thank you.
Jonathan Wallace, Director General, Canada Student Financial Assistance Program, Employment and Social Development Canada: Hi, senator. Thanks for the question.
The Canada Student Loan forgiveness benefit is intended to address shortages of health care professionals in underserved rural and remote areas. The 10 occupations that are being proposed to be scoped into the benefit reflect four key criteria.
First, we looked at labour market shortage data — for example, through the Canadian Occupational Projection System.
Second, we did extensive stakeholder consultations with a number of professionals, as well as with provincial and territorial governments, to inform evidence on where the shortages are and where they’re most acute.
Third, we looked at government priorities to align some of the occupations with other government priorities, such as dental care.
Finally, we looked at what the total cost to government would be, and tried to balance the addition of new professions with minimizing the cost to taxpayers.
Senator Marshall: Well, if I look at early childhood educators, do you have a number in mind? Is there a set objective that the government would like to create — or encourage 200 more individuals? Is there an objective like that, or is it more open-ended?
That’s my last question.
Mr. Wallace: Yes, we do have estimates based on our modelling and the data available. For early childhood educators in particular, once fully implemented — so by 2028-29, which is when we think we’ll reach a steady state — we’re anticipating around 2,700 new beneficiaries through this measure.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you for being here this evening.
My first question concerns Division 21 of Part 4, on improvements to the Labour Code to better protect gig workers. In the briefing notes accompanying Bill C-69, the government gives the example of digital platform workers. I’d like to know if this case also applies to independent truck drivers. We know that there’s a major problem with independent truck drivers. Small independent truck drivers don’t receive benefits. We’re talking about a $2 billion gap since this phenomenon began. Will this measure also affect independent truck drivers?
Mr. Wolfe: Thank you very much for the question. If I may, I’ll answer it in English so I can be clear.
[English]
We did do extensive consultations on this potential change. Certainly, we consulted quite extensively with a lot of truck drivers to ensure this met their needs. Where there are independent owner-operators, this would not apply to them. Just to be very clear on that, if it is a true independent operator, this provision would not apply to them.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Why doesn’t this apply to them? What’s the difference between the example we were given and an independent truck driver?
[English]
Mr. Wolfe: We do have a challenge that exists in the trucking industry — as in some industries — where we have some employees. They are actually employees. Perhaps they don’t actually own their truck. There is a challenge with these individuals being classified as independent contractors, and they are denied their labour rights. We want to ensure these individuals have access to those labour rights. Where there is an independent operator — where there is someone who owns their own truck, for example — they are true independent contractors. Therefore, we don’t want this to apply to them.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I know that Division 23 of Part 4 concerns the maintenance of the five additional weeks of employment insurance to compensate for the infamous black hole phenomenon, which is due to a structural and permanent problem in terms of temporary jobs. This section will be reviewed by our Social Affairs Committee.
My question is this. For the past two years, we have been saying that we are currently working hard to reform EI. What’s the status of this project? Are we ever going to see the results of this work, which is so important in many regions of Canada, where the structure of the industry means that we have a legion of independent workers?
Benoit Cadieux, Director, Policy Analysis and Initiatives, Employment Insurance Policy Directorate, Skills and Employment Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: My name is Benoit Cadieux, and I’m the director responsible for regular and fishing benefits for Employment and Social Development Canada. Thank you for the question.
The government remains committed to improving the EI program. I think the government wants to remain cautious, given the situation with inflation that Canadians are facing, and not introduce measures that would put pressure on EI premium rates — long-term, permanent measures. The government remains committed to improving the program. We continue to try to find different ways to improve the program, but I think the government is proceeding in a way…. I think they’re proceeding with caution, given the fiscal situation.
Senator Forest: It’s very cautious. I think we’re rushing, because we have been told for two years that this is a major project. This is a very problematic situation for many Canadians. So there is no deadline for EI reform?
Mr. Cadieux: As I mentioned, the work continues. The government remains committed to finding solutions and improving the program. For our part, we are trying to determine how it could be improved. Two-year consultations were held in 2021–22. Many suggestions and recommendations were made.
The government continues to analyze the data and use of the post-pandemic program. We are waiting for data on the years following the pandemic to see how the labour market has changed and how Canadians are using the program. The government will then be able to make decisions on how to improve the program over the long term.
Senator Forest: The government remains committed but is not committed to delivering the reform by a specific date.
The Chair: It’s committed to thinking about it.
Mr. Cadieux: As I said, it remains a priority, and we are continuing to work on it; I’ll leave you with that.
The Chair: Thank you. You’re not very lucky with your questions today.
Senator Forest: It’s been a week of bad luck for me.
[English]
Senator Smith: Can we have maybe Celia Lourenco from Health Canada up to the front? Thank you very much.
Imperial Tobacco Canada raised concerns that the proposed changes to the Food and Drugs Act — in Division 31 of Part 4 of the bill — target its nicotine pouches. The company calls for a complete removal of clause 326 of the bill to prevent what it refers to as a regulatory overreach. Can you respond to these concerns and give us some background? Why is Division 31 of Part 4 of the bill important to protect the health and safety of Canadians?
Ms. Lourenco: Thank you very much for the question. Division 31 of Part 4 and clause 326 of the bill have the purpose of putting in place the ability of the minister to develop an order in order to address risks to health for specific therapeutic products, and therapeutic products include drugs, medical devices and natural health products.
We envision using this particular authority in rare circumstances, in very specific circumstances. The current live issue that we’re facing with nicotine replacement therapy products, in particular with nicotine pouches, is strong concerns that have been raised by the health care community around access to these products by youth. We’re seeing access to these products by youth for the authorized and also the unauthorized nicotine products on the market. We’re also seeing that internationally.
The idea is to have these authorities be able to put in an order that adds additional restrictions to the access to these products. We still want these products to be available to adults who smoke and want to try to quit smoking — because that’s the intent of nicotine replacement therapy products — but, at the same time, manage the potential risk of youth access to these products. It’s about looking at issues like the place of sale or, certainly, the advertising, ensuring that the advertising talks only about the health use of these products and not about recreational use, and looking at other aspects, like flavours that could be attractive to youth, as well as packaging and labelling, ensuring that it’s not attractive to youth. So that’s the intent of these measures.
It is a concern that we’ve heard from several health care professionals across the country. We would like to be able to address it.
Senator Smith: Would this be a total exclusion of people at a certain age being able to purchase these products? How would you implement it, and what type of discussions have you had with the suppliers, like Imperial Tobacco Canada?
Ms. Lourenco: We’re currently looking at the different measures that we’re exploring to move forward with, and those include measures around the place of sale, certainly the advertising of these products, having restrictions around advertising, and potentially age verification — these products are authorized for use in people 18 years of age and older; it’s for adults — as well as potentially flavours. We’re having those conversations right now with health care professionals, and we’ll also be engaging with the industry as well for their input.
Senator Smith: Can we go to the Canada Border Services Agency and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada? It’s Mr. Desmarais, I guess. According to the government, the legislative amendments in Division 38 of Part 4 of the bill are in response to the Auditor General’s 2019 report on processing asylum claims that found many system-wide inefficiencies and gaps in information sharing, as well as duplication work between Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.
How will these changes make the processing of asylum cases more efficient, and how will it reduce information-sharing gaps?
Mr. Hollmann: Thank you for the question. We have taken a look at the system from a comprehensive perspective, and some of the changes that we are putting forward are designed to simplify the process and find those spots of bottleneck in the hand-off between departments that can be addressed.
Ensuring that we have a similar process for the reception of claims between the port of entry, where the Canada Border Services Agency takes the claim in, and the process for the inland claim, where Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada would receive the claim, will help with that. Getting claimants to provide their information in a single online application ensures all departments then have access to that information and can streamline the hand-off of that information electronically.
We’re also trying to make sure we review and perform all the verifications of the information and develop hearing-ready packages for the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada so that only those cases ready for them to determine are referred to them. That eliminates the back-and-forth between departments, where cases might be referred before they have all the information, for example, and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada would have to come back to other departments to seek that information.
We’ve tried to find those spots exactly related to some of the challenges previously identified in order to streamline the process.
Senator Smith: Do you set up actual targets? Okay. We’ll try to catch up in the next round.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you to all our witnesses for being here. I’ll start with a question on the Canada Labour Code. Given the rise of gig work — we know it’s where workers are typically independent contractors — Bill C-69 proposes enshrining a statutory presumption that any person who was paid remuneration by an employer will be classified as an employee unless the employer can rebut that presumption.
Do you see any unintended consequences coming from this? And I say that because employers choose to engage gig workers on a contractual basis for various reasons, either to minimize hiring risks or to fulfill specific requirements. To what extent have the stakeholders, such as employers, for example, been properly and adequately consulted? And is there a risk of unintended consequences — for example, employers reducing their workforce as a result? There is a cost to having an employee, right? We all want to protect workers, and it’s a fine policy, but hopefully there are no unintended consequences to it.
Mr. Wolfe: Thank you very much for the question. It’s much appreciated.
Yes, just to respond, the government did engage in quite extensive consultations with employer groups as well as unions and employees. We certainly did extensive consultations to try to ensure that we did not have any unintended consequences. It’s certainly important that we get it right.
Just to explain a little bit more, there are certain tests that are used, which are in civil law, that exist to determine whether someone is actually an employee. These tests are well established, and we don’t actually envisage any unintended consequences in terms of whether someone might be unintentionally classified as an employee. We’re pretty comfortable on this front that there will not be unintended consequences.
Senator Loffreda: The employers whom you did consult with were satisfied that this measure serves their purpose and they would abide by it, although it will increase their costs?
Mr. Wolfe: I would say that for legitimate employers, their primary interest is —
Senator Loffreda: Why do you say “legitimate employers”?
Mr. Wolfe: Employers that are not engaged in misclassifying employees. That’s what I meant by that.
Senator Loffreda: Okay.
Mr. Wolfe: For employers that are not engaged in misclassification, they’re looking for a level playing field. They’re looking for all employers to really be on the same playing field, and not for some employers to have unfair advantages in terms of costs. Many of them are looking for a certain level of enforcement to ensure that employees, if they really are employees, should be treated as such.
Senator Loffreda: To clarify, I need a worker for one year — a contract for one year. After a year, I realize that he or she is needed for an additional year — an additional contract. After two years, I realize that I no longer require that gig worker. Would they be classified as an employee at that point?
Mr. Wolfe: There are tests for any potential worker that would determine whether or not someone is an employee. Those tests would apply to any worker even if someone had been hired on a contract for a given amount of time. If they are truly employees, then they would be normally entitled to labour rights under the Canada Labour Code.
Senator Loffreda: So they would be entitled to the rights, although they are on contract for two years?
Mr. Wolfe: If they’re actually employees, then, yes, that’s quite right.
Senator Loffreda: That’s a major change in the way a lot of these businesses operate.
Mr. Wolfe: I don’t think it’s a major change. With respect, I think we’re simply strengthening existing misclassification provisions.
Senator Loffreda: By minimizing the gig worker, or the contract itself, and making them employees, they then have access to their benefits, their rights and severance pay when it does happen?
Mr. Wolfe: I think that’s right. For employees who are truly employees, we want to make sure they’re getting the labour protections they’re entitled to, absolutely.
Senator Loffreda: And not simply contracts.
I have one question for Health Canada. To continue with what we have already mentioned, Division 31 of Part 4 of the budget implementation act allows the minister to administer rules, including prohibitions and restrictions, on an immediate basis without following due process. We’ve discussed that. Unless Bill C-368 passes — and it was referred to committee on May 29 — this change will enable the Minister of Health to use these powers to place restrictions and prohibitions on natural health products as if they are drugs and all health products.
There is some concern from stakeholders, such as the Canadian Health Food Association, saying that’s an overreach. What are your comments on that? If we don’t have enough time or a second round, perhaps you can send them to us in writing. You don’t feel that it’s an overreach?
Ms. Lourenco: These measures are going to be very targeted. They’re only going to be used in circumstances where we have serious concerns for the health of people using these products when the use is intentional misuse, such as the example I gave with the nicotine replacement therapy products, like the nicotine pouches, where youth are accessing these products and using them recreationally. Nicotine is very addictive. We don’t want youth to become addicted to nicotine.
We would like to be able to put in place measures to restrict the access to those who should not be using these products, but still facilitate access to adults who are intending to quit smoking.
Senator Loffreda: So they shouldn’t be overly concerned?
Ms. Lourenco: They shouldn’t be overly concerned.
Senator MacAdam: This question is for Employment and Social Development Canada on Division 4 of Part 4 of the bill on the Canada Student Loan forgiveness program.
One of the criteria is that these individuals work in a designated underserved rural or remote community. First, how are you defining a “rural or remote community”? Second, given the health care crisis, how do you define an “underserved community” when making your decisions on expanding the occupations?
Mr. Wallace: Hi, senator. Thank you for the question. I’ll speak to the current definition of “underserved rural or remote community,” and mention the changes being implemented by the government to that definition.
Currently, “underserved rural or remote community,” for the purposes of Canada Student Loan forgiveness, is any community in Canada that is not part of a census metropolitan area, a census agglomeration with a population of 50,000 or more, or a provincial capital. If a community is not in one of those three groups, it is considered “rural, remote, underserved.”
That being said, Budget 2023 announced a change in the definition to ensure that no rural communities are left out. We are currently advancing implementation and regulatory amendments to put that into place. Once approved by the Governor-in-Council, that would mean that any community across Canada with a population of 30,000 or less would be considered eligible for the benefit. That new definition uses a different methodology to determine rurality. It uses Statistics Canada’s population centre model which is based on population density. The belief is that would be a fairer way of determining eligible communities.
Senator MacAdam: Okay. What have been the results of the existing Canada Student Loan forgiveness program, which is available to eligible family physicians, nurses and nurse practitioners working in rural or remote communities? How has this impacted access to health care in these communities?
Mr. Wallace: That’s a great question. We do have results. We recently completed an evaluation of the existing benefit, which showed that the benefit does have an impact on the decisions of professionals to work in underserved rural or remote communities. That being said, it’s one of a number of factors that is taken into account when making that decision.
In terms of your question about a contribution to broader health outcomes, we don’t have any strong evidence or data to support that at this time.
Senator MacAdam: Okay. Thank you.
My next question is on Division 14 of Part 4 of the bill on the Canada Pension Plan. Will the changes to the Canada Pension Plan impact individuals who are already receiving Canada Pension Plan benefits?
Neal Leblanc, Director, Canada Pension Plan Policy and Legislation, Employment and Social Development Canada: Thank you for the question, senator. No, they will not. All of these changes are prospective and begin in 2025.
Senator MacAdam: Okay. There are some enhanced benefits, so anybody that’s currently receiving the Canada pension wouldn’t get the enhancement, then?
Mr. Leblanc: These specific changes are actually small, marginal changes, largely to eligibility. For example, the increase to the death benefit will be available to individuals who die in 2025 or later.
In terms of the children’s benefits, the new children’s benefit will begin in 2025. For individuals who are over the age of 18 — they currently have to be in full-time attendance at school to receive the children’s benefit under the Canada Pension Plan — this new benefit of a smaller amount will become available to those who are part-time. This will allow individuals who, for instance, have to stop taking a course because of educational issues or the stress of losing a parent in the case of an orphan’s benefit, or other things, to still be eligible as opposed to the all-or-nothing situation that exists now.
In the case of these benefits, they are new benefits that will only be available on a go-forward basis. They won’t affect past benefits, as people who are already in pay have qualified for other benefits. None of these measures, other than the death benefit top-up, actually increase existing benefits.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you.
Senator Kingston: My first question is for Health Canada. It’s a general question that I asked Finance Canada who said that I should ask someone from Health Canada, so I’m going to try it out. I’m looking at Division 12 of Part 4 of the bill, actually; it’s the Canada Health Transfer, and the fact that there are top-up payments guaranteeing a 5% minimum growth. It is subject to the provinces having a plan to provide more data to the Canadian Institute for Health Information.
What are the plans for this year? What is missing? What are the gaps in information that you would like to have from the provinces?
Ms. Lourenco: Thank you for the question, senator. I do not believe we are able to answer the question here. I’m looking at my colleagues. If we could have that question in writing, we would be happy to respond to you.
Senator Kingston: That would be great, if you could respond in writing.
My next questions are ones that you came to answer on Division 44 of Part 4 of the bill.
In addressing the overdose crisis, you talk about supporting and improving access to evidence-based substance abuse services and supports at the community level, including treatment, harm reduction and recovery services.
Another one of your bullets is about supporting initiatives to understand and address the complex relationships between the overdose crisis and other intersecting factors, including pain management, mental health and homelessness.
Really, what we’re talking about are the social determinants of health.
I have worked in this area with people who are chronically homeless and challenged with issues around mental health and addictions. They require a lot of support. Housing First is a harm reduction initiative.
In your planning going forward to address the overdose crisis, has any thought been given to integrating — somewhat in the way the Canada Health Transfer does — in terms of collaboration with the provinces with regard to how the money is spent, as well as the criteria for that, in order to bring together some of the monies, such as the Reaching Home funds, which are now handled by Infrastructure Canada, so that you have a program that works to support people who are the most complex in terms of their needs around mental health and addictions and, therefore, most prone to fall victim to an overdose crisis?
Jennifer Pelley, Director, Office of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Controlled Substances and Overdose Response Directorate, Controlled Substances and Cannabis Branch, Health Canada: Thank you for the question, as well as the suggestion. At the federal level, we work closely with other government departments that are working on areas such as homelessness. We work with colleagues from Indigenous Services Canada.
You mentioned the determinants of health. There are certain populations that are more vulnerable in the context of the overdose crisis. We are seeing disproportionate deaths in some areas, and we see that the population most impacted is men within a certain age range.
Certainly, as you mentioned, we are very live to the need to work together and tie together initiatives. Thank you for that.
Senator Kingston: Does Health Canada have a plan to interact with the provinces specifically on these issues to ensure these things are taken into account when you’re providing frameworks to help decrease this crisis for people?
Ms. Pelley: I can’t speak to an actual plan in that regard. It is not my area of expertise. I’m the legislative person. It is a good question and a good point, and one that we will take back and consider further. Thank you.
Senator Kingston: Thank you.
Senator Ross: My questions are with regard to Division 39 of Part 4 of the bill.
When Minister Freeland spoke to us last week, I mentioned to her that I am concerned about the many non-budgetary items in Bill C-69. I have a couple of questions.
First, can you give me a sense of why you believe Division 39 was included in the budget implementation act?
Second, do you think this would warrant its own piece of legislation so that it could receive proper and more detailed scrutiny? It does seem like an important piece of legislation.
After the two of you, and others, appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs to discuss Division 39, Minister LeBlanc wrote a letter to the committee, clarifying and correcting various testimonies.
We are working to ensure that this non-budgetary item in this omnibus piece of legislation has proper scrutiny. The minister found it necessary to write a letter to dispute committee testimony, not to mention that amendments were tabled on that section less than three hours ago.
My third question is this: There seems to be a disconnect between testimony we have received during pre-study and the minister’s assertions. Can you give us any advice on our confidence level in doing pre-studies on budget implementation acts, especially on complex non-budgetary items that are amended?
Mr. Desmarais: I can answer a portion of your question.
In terms of why — and why the budget implementation act — there is a time sensitivity to the measure, and it is in the interest of public safety that the measure is being brought forward.
Unfortunately, for a number of years, the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, has been relying on provincial correctional facilities in order to house a select number of high‑risk individuals, and that practice has continued for at least two decades.
Those agreements were terminated in rapid succession in the space of a year. We’re in a place where we have to take measures — and we have already taken measures — to retrofit our existing facilities that were designed with the intent of placing low-risk and medium-risk individuals in those facilities.
The intent is essentially, for time-limited purposes, to seek the assistance of Correctional Service Canada by using existing space within federal penitentiaries and have them operated by the CBSA under its existing authority. No new authorities are being provided to the CBSA in terms of how it conducts detention. The authorities being sought are specifically about the placement of individuals in order to safeguard public safety. There is a time sensitivity to that measure in order to ensure that the CBSA has the tools it needs to continue to carry out its mandate. I’ll remind the committee that its mandate is to effect removal as soon as possible. That is the legislative mandate of the CBSA. That speaks to the time sensitivity of the measure.
As to why this is introduced in the budget implementation act, I may have addressed that as part of the first answer. I do not necessarily control how individual pieces of legislation are being introduced, so I will probably sidestep that particular question. I think the Minister of Finance has already addressed that.
With respect to the testimonies of particular groups who came after the CBSA, I think the minister felt it was important to set the record straight — through the letter, which has been addressed to the committee — particularly with respect to how immigration detention is being used.
It has been stated in committee — at least at the National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee, when I was present — that it is a measure of last resort. I will re-emphasize that. The CBSA processes close to 30 million foreign nationals — non-citizens — on a yearly basis. We detain perhaps 5,000 of them. Close to half of them are being released within the first 48 hours. You are left with a small residual number.
Out of that residual are a number of individuals who may be presenting certain behaviours that are unbecoming of what we would expect. This may include, for example, individuals who are convicted — either in Canada or overseas — in a different context for various serious offences, which may include sexual offences, violence and weapons. They may also be exhibiting certain conduct that is not necessarily easily managed in a low‑risk setting, which is currently what the CBSA has access to in its immigration holding centres.
While efforts are under way to transform our existing immigration holding centres, having the ability to be able to use purpose-built facilities that will be operated by the CBSA in a Correctional Service Canada facility was felt to be an appropriate measure in the circumstances, and that’s the reason why the minister actually brought that particular measure forward.
Senator Pate: I am tempted to leap right in. First, I want to ask a question of Employment and Social Development Canada.
With respect to the appeal provisions for the Canada Disability Benefit, section 10.1(b) of the Canada Disability Benefit Act talks about the right of appeal in respect of any decision relating to the amount of the Canada Disability Benefit that the person has received or will receive. I recognize it’s not within your purview that it was only set at $200 per month, but it strikes me as this: Appeal what? What’s the point of appeal if the top amount is going to be $200? Are you anticipating there will be an opportunity for the appeal process to provide more benefit than the $200 per month that is currently allocated? If not, what analysis have you done to look at how many people will actually be pulled out of poverty? If you could provide that disaggregated data — as disaggregated as you may have — by region, gender and race, as well as obviously by the extent of disability, that would be much appreciated.
It would also be appreciated if you could make any comments on whether there have already been commitments made by provinces, territories and insurance companies not to claw back — I presume that’s a part of the appeal process — and if there are any amendments that are being considered to those provisions.
I will ask that question, and then I will go to Corrections Canada. Just picking up on Senator Ross’s comments, I was struck by the fact that Mr. Desmarais spoke about what people are being detained for. In my experience, in this process, people are usually detained in immigration detention once they are deemed eligible for conditional release through the corrections process, which means that, in fact, they are eligible for conditional release. This means their risk assessment is, usually, it’s a flight risk reason that they are then put into provincial custody.
Given that these are individuals who are often in federal custody first, is the plan to keep them in the federal custodial facility — where they are currently located — when they are then being assessed or processed for removal?
I would like to go to you first, and then here, and then in writing if we don’t have time for a full answer. Thank you.
Lorraine Pelot, Director General, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: Thank you, senator. I’m the Director General of the Office for Disability Issues at Employment and Social Development Canada.
To the first question, which is about the need for an appeal process for a benefit that is $200, if I understood, both the law on the Canada Disability Benefit as well as the proposed regulations we envision will be suitable for various levels of the benefit, regardless of what it is now or what it might become in the future. The proposals are to cover different scenarios.
There is a commitment in the legislative framework to have an ability for people who receive the benefit to first seek a reconsideration from other departmental officials, and then to seek an appeal approach. What’s proposed in this legislation, as requested by Canadians and by those persons with disabilities, is an administrative tribunal — the Social Security Tribunal — to make it an easier and more accessible process for appeal.
I would say, in sum, the appeal process is proposed to be the same regardless of the amount of benefit that is provided.
Senator Pate: Okay. What about the data about how many people will be pulled out of poverty and the clawbacks by insurance companies, provinces and territories?
Ms. Pelot: On the disaggregated data, I can get back to you with numbers on that and provide what we have.
With respect to the provincial and territorial clawbacks, there are ongoing discussions with provinces and territories at various levels of officials and ministerial. We don’t have any firm decisions as yet, but, of course, the provinces and territories recently received the numbers at the same time as the budget announcement. We are closely working together with them to ensure that people benefit from the full amount of the Canada Disability Benefit.
Senator Pate: If you have earmarked monies for the potential lawsuits that will be coming from people with disabilities, could you include that information in what’s coming? If you haven’t, then the obvious question is: Why not? Thank you.
Mr. Desmarais: There is an interplay between the criminal justice system and the immigration system. I think you understand that interplay. The criminal justice system always takes over. It trumps immigration and sentencing proceeds.
It’s important to note that there are two different risk assessments being conducted. There are specific immigration-related provisions that speak to when a person needs to be detained. Those decisions are reviewable by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, so it’s a different tribunal.
The placement decision is one made by the CBSA. It’s not because you have an individual who is actually an inmate coming out of a criminal incarceration in a federal penitentiary who is necessarily going to be placed into a designated immigrant station, for example. That risk assessment will be looking at a number of different criteria, which includes conduct.
We have, for example, at the present time, 30% of our immigration holding centre detainees who already have existing criminality. It’s more the conduct of the individual that will be an indicator of the placement.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: I have five questions, and I would like short answers. The first is on clause 326 of Division 31, which Senator Smith referred to, because we had Imperial Tobacco here this afternoon. Am I right in thinking that the concern of this company and others is that the minister would set by order the conditions of sale, marketing, labelling, packaging, and so on? Some people think that’s another great scenario like with cigarettes.
Am I right in thinking that the power given to the minister can only be exercised by order and that, under section 30.03, the order is subject to the Statutory Instruments Act, so it has to be published in advance? We can receive the consultation and then pass the regulations, unless it’s for one person. What do we mean by the word “person” in section 30.03?
Ms. Lourenco: A person is when there are examples where you want to have a ministerial order for a certain product, a certain company.
Senator Dalphond: Could it be a single company?
Ms. Lourenco: Yes, it’s possible.
Senator Dalphond: Therefore, a single product.
Ms. Lourenco: Yes, a single product.
Senator Dalphond: So they are right in thinking that this could apply to them and that their enforcement system wouldn’t apply? As a result, there would be a publication of notices, with a consultation period, and then adoption?
Ms. Lourenco: We still plan to have a consultation period, even if it’s with a single company. We will consult with the company before implementing the ministerial order.
Senator Dalphond: Will it be published in the Canada Gazette so that we can hold the usual consultation periods?
Ms. Lourenco: The Canada Gazette can be used or not; it depends on whether it’s urgent, but there will be consultations, obviously.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you. I have a question on Division 38, which deals with refugees, processing files, and speeding up that processing. I understood that the House of Commons finance committee has deleted Division 38. Will this cause serious problems in operations?
[English]
Mr. Hollmann: The measures proposed under this act are designed to improve the system and create greater efficiencies.
Senator Dalphond: You said that before, but that was deleted yesterday at committee. It may be reintroduced at third reading, but would it be a terrible thing if it were deleted?
Mr. Hollmann: We are working against a backdrop of 130 million forcibly displaced people, as estimated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, by the end of this year. Canada hasn’t been immune to the rising number of asylum claimants. In 2022, we had 92,000 claims. Last year, we had 144,000 claims. What we are trying to solve by the measures — the context I gave in the opening remarks — is a system under strain and the backlogs that are impacting clients and the time it is taking for them to have certainty.
Senator Dalphond: I understand that. Removal of Division 38 will cause you some serious problems?
Mr. Hollmann: Well, it will continue the type of approach that Canada is using today in relation to asylum, which is a slower approach, including for claimants.
Senator Dalphond: Division 39 — an amendment — has made it so that it will last a maximum of five years. You are aware of that, I assume? Yesterday, the committee amended the procedures that provided for serious reasons in order to decide who can go in the special unit. It would be very limited, and the decision has to be made by the minister so that due process has been provided for. I understand that. For me, it is a big improvement and a major step forward, and it addresses many of the concerns of the stakeholders.
The other change was to have the maximum limit that the law will be enforced for only five years — clause 441 has been amended. You said it was a temporary measure. Would you be comfortable with the five years?
Mr. Desmarais: As I mentioned, the intent was always to have temporary measures. The measures that were introduced with the Governor-in-Council were time limited for five years, with the possibility of extending for a further five years.
Senator Dalphond: This is gone.
Mr. Desmarais: It is gone. Now it will be a one-time five years, which will allow us time to pivot and be able to look at and implement alternative options.
Senator Dalphond: So you will be able to live with that amendment?
Mr. Desmarais: Correct.
Senator Dalphond: Regarding Division 21 about the gig economy, that applies only to the federally incorporated regulated businesses, I understand.
Mr. Wolfe: Thank you for the question. Yes, that is quite correct, so the federally regulated —
Senator Dalphond: So all the provincially regulated businesses are not covered by that. Does any province have similar provisions where the presumption is that you are an employee instead of being an independent contractor?
Mr. Wolfe: No, not that I am aware of.
Senator Dalphond: So you would be leading the pack — sending a message.
Mr. Wolfe: You could put it that way, yes.
Senator Dalphond: And the message would be applicable to about 5% to 10% of the employees?
Mr. Wolfe: That is correct.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Welcome to the witnesses. My question is for Health Canada. We’ll talk about Division 12, and first we’ll talk about numbers. Basically, it’s an agreement that was reached in February 2023 between the provinces and the federal government for a 5% guarantee, if I understand correctly, in terms of health transfer growth rates to ensure that the provinces have at least 5% growth.
I’m curious to know something. In the briefing notes that were given to us at the government representative’s office, the cost is estimated to be about $15 billion over 10 years. Is that really the case?
My specific question is this. All of this seems to be based on nominal GDP forecasts. How can that cost more or less than $15 billion? Can you tell us a little more about the formula? I’ll have a second question afterwards.
Ms. Lourenco: Thank you for your question. Can we have the question in writing? We don’t have representatives here.
Senator Gignac: No problem, I’ll send it in writing. We’ll talk about conditions instead. To get this 5% guarantee, the provinces have to meet certain conditions, that is, they must agree to data sharing, collection and exchange. Have all the provinces complied with these conditions as we speak? We know that Quebec is always sensitive when it comes to conditional transfers, as is the case here. Have all the provinces met the conditions? If so, what kind of conditions are we talking about when it comes to data?
Ms. Lourenco: Thank you for your question. If you agree, we can answer it in writing.
Senator Gignac: I will give my colleagues time to ask their questions, because my questions revolved around the same issues. We’re talking about $15 billion over 10 years. These are large amounts. These are mathematical formulas. All of this is based on scenarios, so I’ll submit my question in writing.
The Chair: Could you give us a quick answer, because it’s Bill C-69?
Ms. Lourenco: It’s not my area, unfortunately. We’ll check.
The Chair: I understand.
Senator Gignac: It’s in relation to Division 12, which was presented to us.
Senator Oudar: I’d like to thank everyone for being here this evening. My questions relate to Divisions 21 and 22, particularly the amendments to the Canada Labour Code. Perhaps I will conclude the exchange you just had; we’re talking about schemes, that is, employers seeking to circumvent labour laws in order to avoid paying payroll taxes, such as health and income security, and to cover an employee who is truly a salaried worker. I’m pleased to hear the answers that have been given.
In the figures we’ve been given and the documents we have, we’re talking about 41,000 workers. There are some in trucking — we’ve talked about that — and also in courier services; there are freelancers, artists, delivery people — we’re thinking of Uber and Uber Eats — and so on. These are figures from 2016. Do you have more recent figures than the figure of 41,000 workers? Earlier, you said that you did a lot of consultations. Can we have up-to-date figures? How many workers are affected by this today?
The Chair: The examples you gave come mainly under provincial jurisdiction. That should still reduce the number.
Senator Oudar: We’re talking about the Canada Labour Code. The question before you relates only to jurisdiction over the Canada Labour Code, meaning federal undertakings. Trucking is an interprovincial sector. For all the federally regulated companies — telecommunications, for example — do you have a more recent figure than what we’ve been given?
Mr. Wolfe: Thank you for your question. Unfortunately, we don’t have any more recent data. That’s all we have. That’s a problem. We are working with Statistics Canada to get more recent data, but it’s obvious that the numbers are increasing. Most people who are self-employed are in the provinces and territories. Obviously, there are also a good number of them in the federal government.
Senator Oudar: Since my second question was about tax evasion, I imagine that the Department of Finance is responsible for answering. Have no assessments been done on what will be collected in taxes and paid to the Department of Finance? There’s no data on this?
Mr. Wolfe: That’s a good question, and it’s true that we don’t have any figures, unfortunately. I’m sorry.
Senator Oudar: We asked the Department of Finance officials yesterday. I don’t know if you spoke to each other. There were no more answers.
I will move directly on to the right to disconnect, which is an important measure. I can only applaud it and thank you. You join France, Germany, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy and many other countries, I hope. I was very pleased to see this. Then I read the bill — I’m on page 243 of the budget. I also looked at the amendments to the act but saw that there was no effective date. What’s the game plan? Why, if there’s no effective date, does it say that it’s by order in council? You will surely tell me that, since regulations are required first and must be pre-published, a deadline could have been set. It wouldn’t be a real answer if you were going to tell me that.
More specifically, my problem is that the $3.6 million is starting to be paid out. Why is this amount being paid out now, since there is no effective date? We’re not naive; if there are no immediate implications or regulations, we can assume that employees and workers won’t see the benefits until 2026 or even later.
I didn’t understand why these amounts were being paid out now.
Does this money go to the labour program of Employment and Social Development Canada, which affects wages, or does it go to companies to help them develop policies?
Mr. Wolfe: Thank you very much for the question. It’s true that it will take time to draft the regulations. The labour program has work to do. That’s going to take time, and it’s going to take people to do the work, so the money will be used to do that work.
Senator Oudar: The $3.6 million is for the salaries of your employees —
Mr. Wolfe: That’s correct.
Senator Oudar: — and not subsidies for businesses to help them develop policies. There is no money paid to employers and workplaces?
Mr. Wolfe: No. It’s really for the government, so it can do the work required for the regulations.
Senator Oudar: Do you have an idea of the date or the game plan? What is your target date for the coming into force?
Mr. Wolfe: First, it will take about 18 months to draft the regulations. It’s hard to say exactly, but that is the time it usually takes.
Senator Oudar: Eighteen months? We’ll keep an eye on you. Do I have time left, Mr. Chair?
The Chair: No.
Senator Oudar: I wanted to talk about sexual harassment, but it will have to wait.
The Chair: Maybe for the second round of questions.
Mr. Wolfe, I have some questions for you. I’ve never seen this before. Perhaps some of my fellow lawyers have seen it, but there’s a presumption written into it. The purpose of a presumption is to facilitate proof during a legal action. You are creating a presumption that a person who receives remuneration from an employer is presumed to be their employee. The presumption is not irrebuttable. It can be rebutted, as the provision indicates: “unless the contrary is proved by the employer”. Right afterwards, it says that the presumption does not apply for the purposes of a prosecution under this part, so what is it for?
Mr. Wolfe: I will answer in English if you don’t mind.
[English]
The idea behind the presumption is really in a state where there is a situation of a contestation of one’s status, whether one is an employee or an independent contractor. The idea is to have a presumption which would say that the person is considered to be an employee, and often the reason for this is that we find that many employees don’t have very many resources to hire, say, a lawyer or to be able to prove their status. Where there is a state of contestation, it will facilitate the presumption that they are employees. So this will be helpful for —
[Translation]
The Chair: You say that the presumption applies administratively to the employer-employee relationship, but if it goes further and legal action is undertaken by the government or the authority in question, the presumption no longer applies. The burden of proof will be on the employer, who will have to prove that the person is not their employee.
[English]
Mr. Wolfe: That’s right. Just to be clear, where a person is, say, an independent contractor or not an employee, then that’s perfectly fine. If the arguments are put forward, then there will be no issue. It should be quite a straightforward decision.
[Translation]
The Chair: Great. I don’t want to belabour the point, but I’ve never seen a provision structured in this way before. Perhaps my colleagues have seen it, but it’s pretty uncommon.
My other question is about the learning bonds for student loan repayment relief.
I don’t remember who answered the question about repayment relief so that people like dentists, dental hygienists and social workers can work in rural and remote communities.
Mr. Wallace: I did.
The Chair: Unless I misunderstand the system, the idea is to give certain professionals repayment relief to encourage them to work in rural and remote communities. Would they would get relief from repayment?
Mr. Wallace: It’s not repayment relief, it’s loan forgiveness.
The Chair: Loan forgiveness?
Mr. Wallace: Yes, exactly.
The Chair: Why focus on people who got loans? A dentist who did not receive loans would not receive the benefits for working in rural and remote communities, whereas someone who had received loans would benefit from doing the same kind of work. That is discrimination between those two dentists or other professionals. I’m using dentists as an example, but perhaps they do not necessarily need financial incentives.
Mr. Wallace: That’s a good question. It is under the Canada Student Financial Assistance Program, a tool that the federal government is using to help solve the problem. We don’t have access to the data for people who have never had a Canada Student Loan. They can’t use this tool.
The Chair: No, but they pay income tax. Why not offer them a tax credit or lower their inclusion rate if they work in rural and remote communities? The government has a lot of leeway through tax provisions. Why not have tax credits that apply to all dentists, all hygienists and all psychologists, not just the ones who are disadvantaged and received loans and bursaries?
Mr. Wallace: That could obviously be another option, but one of the reasons the government decided to use the Canada Student Financial Assistance Program is that students who receive loans are usually from poorer families, which can’t afford to pay for post-secondary education. The idea is that it will help them practise their profession. Other Canadians may not need the same kind of help.
The Chair: I understand. I have no further questions.
We have a few minutes left. We could do a quick second round with a brief question and a brief answer. We have a meeting afterwards, so it will be a very quick second round.
Senator Forest: I will try to find a question that has an answer. My question is for the Health Canada officials. How will the new regulations in Division 44 improve the sharing of spaces between supervised consumption sites and their neighbours?
The Chair: Excuse me. You have one minute for the question and answer.
Ms. Pelley: I’m sorry. I didn’t catch all that.
Senator Forest: How will the new regulations improve the sharing of spaces between supervised consumption sites and their neighbours? There have been space-sharing issues in Canada.
Ms. Pelley: We have not yet held consultations about the regulations, but we definitely need to hold more consultations on that aspect.
Senator Forest: Thank you.
Senator Gignac: I will give my minute to my colleague Senator Oudar.
[English]
Senator Smith: My question is to the CBSA about failed claimants. The reports on failed claimants with active warrants from the CBSA continue to rise, which raises security concerns.
How many active warrants are outstanding, and is there anything in the budget that will assist you in handling this issue of failed claimants or people with warrants? Is there something in place that’s going to help you? Are you equipped from a staff perspective to handle the volume between asylum seekers and warrants? If you can’t answer now, maybe you can write a paragraph about that. It would be helpful.
Mr. Desmarais: Numbers over 30,000 warrants remain open. We can provide additional information in response to the question. Thank you for the question.
Senator Loffreda: My question is on professionals going to the regions and Canada Student Loan forgiveness. I do believe that there is a lack of fairness for those who do have student loans and those who don’t have student loans, although we want to promote professionals going to regions. What is the extent of student loans? What amount are we talking about? What results do we intend to have, and who was consulted? On that note, we just have a minute, so I’ll stop there.
Mr. Wallace: Thank you for the questions, senator. We do have data on average loan balances at consolidation. For all student loan holders, the average balance is just over $15,000. However, for nurses, it’s around $24,000. For doctors, it’s around $34,000. I don’t have the numbers for all of the new professions offhand right now, but we do know that there are higher loan balances for certain professionals, in particular because they tend to be in school longer. I think that answers the first part of your question.
For the second part, in terms of the results that we’re expecting, we’re expecting an increase in the number of these professionals who work and remain in rural or remote areas as a result of this measure.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
Senator MacAdam: My question has already been asked.
Senator Kingston: I would like to give my time to Senator Oudar who will ask about sexual harassment.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: It seems that everyone is eager to talk about sexual harassment.
I’m on page 251 of the budget. It’s heartening to see headlines such as “Workplace sexual harassment and access to justice is a priority for the Government of Canada.” I think we can all agree with that, as well as with the statement, “All individuals have the right to a safe workplace.” Workplace sexual harassment is unacceptable and “impacts the health and well-being of those involved,” particularly women, young people, people from the 2SLGBTQI+ community, Indigenous people and racialized people.
However, the $30.6 million allocated to the Department of Justice seems to be going towards advisory services for victims.
Victims must absolutely be supported, but the aim of combatting sexual harassment is to prevent it from occurring. It’s really about prevention. What amount is provided for preventing harassment? To truly fight harassment, I think we need to not only support the victims, but also make sure that it never happens in the first place.
The Chair: Who here can answer the question? Is there no one in the room who can answer it?
[English]
Senator Pate: My question is back to the CBSA.
The Charter Statement for the Bill C-69 provisions doesn’t include the detention of migrants. Could you provide something in writing about what the Charter analysis was for those sections?
Mr. Desmarais: I can certainly do that. We’ll have to consult with our Department of Justice colleagues.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: I have one minute to ask my question, so you can send your answer in writing. This is still about Division 4.
A number of medical professions have been added. Family doctors and nurse practitioners were already included.
Could you tell us how many people have used the system every year? Could you also tell us about the conditions attached to it? The act says “begins to work in an under-served rural or remote community.” If they work there for six months, is the debt forgiven? Can they return to the community? If they work in a rural or remote community for five years, is one fifth of their debt forgiven each year?
Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chair, do I have time to answer now?
The Chair: Yes, you have 30 seconds.
Mr. Wallace: To have the equivalent of one year’s loan forgiven, they need to have practised their profession in the community. They can do this at most five times. If they go back to school and get other student loans, they cannot use the program afterward to have another loan forgiven.
The most recent figures indicate that 5,400 family doctors and other professionals currently in the program had a portion of their student loan forgiven in 2021-22. With the 10 additional professions, we foresee the figure rising to around 27,000 people per year once the program has been fully implemented. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wallace. Thank you to all the witnesses. We really appreciate your being here. We are occasionally forced to rush you a little, and we apologize for the short amount of time you had. I’m sure you understand that it’s not easy having a bill with many different provisions and divisions, as well as different mindsets depending on the subject. That brings today’s meeting to a close.
Those who have promised to send written answers or documents have until end of day on Tuesday, June 11, 2024. We would appreciate receiving them soon.
We will suspend the meeting for three minutes. I will ask the senators to stay in the room, since we need to go in camera to discuss our drafting instructions for the report.
(The committee continued in camera.)