THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 19, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 4:21 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on the report on the Statutes Repeal Act for the year 2025.
Senator Denise Batters (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good afternoon, honourable senators. I am Denise Batters. I’m a senator from Saskatchewan, the home of the Grey Cup champions, the Saskatchewan Roughriders. You all knew I had to say that today, especially since I’m in the chair.
I’m normally deputy chair of this committee, but Senator Arnot is busy in the Senate Chamber, so I will be chairing while he’s still occupied there. I invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Duncan: Patricia Duncan, senator for the Yukon.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Senator Prosper: Senator Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, also Alberta, also Treaty 6 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I am Manuelle Oudar from Quebec. Welcome.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Before we begin, I would ask all senators and people here in person as participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Make sure you keep your earpiece away from the microphone at all times. Don’t touch the microphone. It’s turned on and off by the console operator. Don’t handle your earpiece while the microphone is on. Keep it in your ear or place it on the stickers on the tables.
Honourable senators, we are meeting to examine the 2025 report on the Statutes Repeal Act, or SRA, the tabling of which was recorded in the Journals of the Senate on May 29, 2025. We will also consider the accompanying list of acts or provisions of acts proposed not to be repealed pursuant to the act, which was tabled in the Senate on November 5, 2025. This committee is authorized to undertake this study and shall report its findings no later than December 4, 2025.
Based on the past experience of these types of Statutes Repeal Act issues, your steering committee has resolved to divide this study into two meetings this week rather than have a full house like last year.
For today’s meeting, we will examine items 1 through 14 of the annual report. Tomorrow, November 20, we will turn to items 15 through 28, which include a number of repeals. Then we will conclude on a discussion on drafting instructions.
To help us begin our examination, we are joined by officials from Department of Justice Canada who will be leading this presentation and providing context on the report. We are pleased to welcome Linda DuPont, General Counsel and Director, Legislative Services Branch, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector; Josée Filion, Deputy Director and Senior Counsel, Legislative Services Sector; and Fabien Vadnais, Legal Counsel, Legislative Services Branch, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector. They are joined by a large group of various departmental officials in attendance to respond to questions from senators relating to the acts and provisions under their responsibilities. There’s a list that has been circulated to members of this committee.
On behalf of the committee, I thank you all for taking the time out of your busy schedules to be here today and help us with this item.
Members have also received a briefing note providing a concise summary of each act and provision in the 2025 report for which a deferral is proposed, explaining why they have not yet come into force and why they should not be repealed at this time.
The goal of today’s process is, therefore, to provide senators with an opportunity to ask questions to departmental officials about the justifications for each deferral contained in the annual report. For today’s review, I suggest that we group the items into sets of five. We can then allocate roughly 30 minutes for questions and discussions for each segment.
I propose that we begin with items 1 to 5, then move to items 6 to 10 and finish with items 11 to 14, each group with about half an hour for discussion. Of course, if there’s less on one part, we will have more time for the remaining parts. We’ll pick up tomorrow with item 15 onward.
We will start with opening remarks from the lead department, followed by a consolidated review of the report.
I have one question, since we have Senator Duncan here from the Government Representative’s Office, or GRO. She serves in a position with that office. What I wanted to ask Senator Duncan is this: A few hours ago, before this committee, I received a couple of items that were provided to us by email from your office. Are those the same items that were provided earlier from this committee? I want to make sure that I’m not missing something. We set this meeting a couple of weeks ago. I don’t know whether the Government Representative’s Office provided something earlier. I want to make sure we have the up-to-date information, and if what you provided is the same as before, that’s fine.
Senator Duncan: Thank you very much, Senator Batters, for that question. I have to apologize to the committee; I’m rather new to this role in terms of serving with the Government Representative’s Office and sorting this out. To the best of my knowledge, it’s similar to information you received before. I do apologize to the committee for how late it was sent. That is my fault.
The Deputy Chair: Okay, thank you. I’ll now turn the floor over to the officials from the Department of Justice. You can decide how you will proceed. You probably discussed this earlier. I understand that you’ll be speaking for about five minutes. Thank you.
Linda DuPont, General Counsel and Director, Legislative Services Branch, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you for inviting us today. We are very pleased to participate in the committee’s study on the annual report pursuant to the Statutes Repeal Act. I’m here with my colleagues who were introduced earlier. They lead the initiative on behalf of the Department of Justice. Happily, they will support me in providing answers if you have any questions about the process per se.
I would first like to quickly provide some general and basic information about this process.
This act seeks to ensure the effective maintenance of federal legislation through the regular repeal of acts or provisions that are not in force and that are no longer needed. Section 2 of the act requires that the Minister of Justice table an annual report before both houses of Parliament on any of the first five sitting days in each calendar year. This report lists the acts and provisions of acts of Parliament not yet in force that were enacted nine years or more before December 31 of the previous calendar year.
Under the Statutes Repeal Act, every act or provision listed in the annual report is automatically repealed on December 31 of that year, unless it comes into force or either house of Parliament adopts a resolution to defer its repeal to the following year.
[Translation]
The process provided for under the Statutes Repeal Act is based on a rigorous review, requiring significant coordination and approval within the federal government.
[English]
Following the tabling of the annual report, federal departments are asked to provide their recommendation and rationale for deferral of repeal or repeal of an act or provision under their minister’s responsibility. Departments are to take steps to either repeal or bring into force the acts and provisions, particularly when deferral has been sought for several years. The final decision on whether to seek deferral of a repeal rests with the responsible department.
[Translation]
It may be necessary to defer the repeal of legislation in the following situations: when an external event must take place before the legislation can be brought into force or be repealed; when proposed legislation repealing, replacing, or bringing into force the not-in-force provisions is being drafted; or when additional time is required to complete the necessary policy work or consultations.
This year, the ministers in question intend to defer the repeal of one entire act and provisions in 19 other acts.
Of the 29 items in the 2025 annual report, seven are listed for the first time and 21 were deferred from the 2024 annual report.
It’s important that a resolution be adopted by December 31, 2025. Otherwise, the act and the provisions of the other acts listed in the motion will automatically be repealed by operation of the Statutes Repeal Act. This could lead to inconsistency in federal legislation, and jeopardize relationships with certain First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities, the provinces and territories, and international partners, given that policy work still needs to be done in relation to a number of items. Discussions are ongoing.
In addition, if the act and the provisions of the other acts listed in the motion are repealed on December 31, the federal departments in question will probably need to address the resulting legislative gaps by introducing new bills. This legislative process would be long, laborious and costly, and would not be an efficient use of parliamentarians’ time.
[English]
This concludes my opening remarks. I understand, senator, that you will be taking the committee through the different items in the report in the order that they appear today and tomorrow.
An annex explaining the recommended deferrals has been provided to the committee, and delegates from the departments that are responsible for these items listed are in attendance today and tomorrow to address questions this committee may have.
[Translation]
With the help of my colleagues Josée and Fabien, I would be pleased to answer your questions on the annual repeal process.
[English]
Thank you very much, and we remain available.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much for your remarks.
We will now proceed to questions from senators. I would like to express my gratitude to the witnesses in advance for providing concise responses and, frankly, also to senators for providing concise questions when possible.
First, are there any questions on items 1 to 5 in the report? I want to make it clear that the two senators who had their hands up — Senator Oudar and Senator Simons — both have questions with respect to items 1 to 5.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I believe it’s item 1, actually. I have a question about the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act. It’s a short question. What I’d like to know is this: What legal uncertainties, or legislative or regulatory gaps would arise if the provision were repealed?
[English]
Sarah Stinson, Director of Operations, Democratic Institutions, Privy Council Office: Sarah Stinson, Director of Operations, Democratic Institutions Secretariat.
[Translation]
Thank you for your question.
[English]
The Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, or PESRA, Part II was last deferred in November 2024, and since that time, the Privy Council Office Democratic Institutions Secretariat has engaged the labour program at Employment and Social Development Canada, or ESDC, to undertake a preliminary assessment of Part II.
In this regard, it was noted that most parliamentary employees currently have relevant protections that surpass minimal labour standards through collective agreements. However, there is a subset of political staff who do not have Canada Labour Code standards in place, and Part II could apply to over 4,000 employees. Approximately 3,200 of these are political staffers.
The assessment also noted to date that bringing Part II of PESRA into force has had little proactive interest from stakeholders. In terms of next steps, one area that could be pursued is consultation with parliamentary stakeholders.
Certainly in the past, some of the issues raised with respect to bringing PESRA Part II into force relate to parliamentary privilege.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I have a follow-up question.
Just to reassure the committee, I’d like to know whether the legislative changes we would be making would take rights away from workers.
[English]
Ms. Stinson: If I understood the question correctly, you are asking if it impacts the rights of parliamentary employees.
Currently, most parliamentary employees do have rights that exceed, in fact, the current standard Labour Code. There is, however, that small subset that I referenced that could, in fact, benefit from the putting into force of Part II.
Again, I think more consultation is required to determine exactly what that percentage is, whether that is something that parliamentary stakeholders have different perspectives on and what the broader considerations might be in that regard.
Senator Oudar: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: I would like to follow up on this. When I was looking through these, I noticed in the brief a little explanation that was provided here that indicated that this has been deferred from repeal since 2014. We are at 11 or 12 years, as we’re almost at the end of 2025.
The explanation is to “. . . preserve the authority of the Governor in Council . . .” — so cabinet — “. . . to bring the protections of Part II into force . . . .”
Then it says, “. . . following appropriate policy work and consultation with parliamentary stakeholders.”
You referred to stakeholders in your earlier answer. Are you speaking about the different political parties in the House of Commons and those caucuses? Is it just the House of Commons? Is it also to do with ministers’ employees, or is it just members of the House of Commons’ employees? Does it also apply to the Senate?
Ms. Stinson: Thank you for the question. Were it to come into force, Part II of PESRA would apply the labour standards of the code to parliamentary workplaces. This would include hours of work, wages, vacation and overtime. The standards would apply to a broader grouping. It would include the Senate, the House of Commons, the Library of Parliament, the Office of the Senate Ethics Officer, the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Parliamentary Protective Service and the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer as well as members of Parliaments’ staff.
The Deputy Chair: It’s the recommendation of the current government and the cabinet that this continue to be deferred for an additional period of time, though who knows when? It may come back to us next year with a decision on it, finally, or it may go on for another 10 years. Is that correct?
Ms. Stinson: The first assessment was undertaken, as I mentioned, recently, following deferral in November of 2024. Indeed, there could be further consultation and assessment. Then a recommendation would be made as to whether to defer or otherwise.
The Deputy Chair: When you speak about that, it also potentially applies to senators’ employees. Would that be Senate administration as well, or just senators’ employees? And who do you consult with as far as the Senate goes?
Ms. Stinson: I would need to return to you on the Senate administrators and that particular distinction.
The terms of reference of any future consultation that might take place are still to be determined, so that would be part of the considerations in looking at whether a consultation or further assessment would be undertaken.
The Deputy Chair: Yes, if you could please get back to us, as it’s directly applicable to us. We would like to know the answer to that question. Thank you.
Ms. Stinson: Sure.
Senator Simons: My question is about the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act as it relates to Canadian Armed Forces death benefits.
Thank you very much, Ms. Favereau and Mr. Irwin. This deals with the rather important issue of death benefits for members of the Canadian Forces. It has been deferred since 2011, which is a long time to be working through the regulations and consultations. At the end of the note, we are told that the regulations have now been finalized and the consultations are complete. Could you translate that for us in terms of when this will actually come into force?
Karen Favereau, Director, Pension Program Management, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: I will defer to Stephen Irwin.
Stephen Irwin, Director, Pension and Social Programs, Military Personnel Command, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: We are confident this will come into force by the end of this calendar year.
Senator Simons: Well, that is good. Can you give us any sense of why it has taken since 2011 until now to do this?
Mr. Irwin: I can’t speak to a lot of that period of time. I wasn’t around for that. I can certainly say, over the past couple of years, it has become a major focus. It is far more complicated than I would have thought. Every word gets sent back and forth and analyzed and then comes back with more questions. But we have put a very high priority on that within the department over the past year to ensure that we get it to the point of completion. We are very confident that we are there.
Senator Simons: Will there be any retroactivity?
Mr. Irwin: There wouldn’t be any requirement for retroactivity. The change in regulation moves items out of the legislation and into regulations. So, for example, when we talk about supplementary death benefits, those rates of contribution, the specifics of how it is all to be administered are outlined in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. There has been no move to change that, but if we wanted to change that, we would have to change the legislation. When this comes into force, that will bring those into regulations so it becomes a much simpler process.
Senator Simons: So the next time there is a change, it will be much easier to do. I don’t know if this would be appropriate to ask, Madam Chair, but if and when this does come into force in this calendar year, could you let us know?
Mr. Irwin: I would be happy to.
Senator Simons: Because I don’t think we will see it in the tiny agate type, but if you could send a memo to the clerk of this committee to let us know that this has, in fact, come into force — or send a note to me personally — I would be happy to know.
The Deputy Chair: Could you send it to the clerk of the committee, please?
Mr. Irwin: Absolutely.
The Deputy Chair: I want to start, as we are doing this with each of the witnesses, by asking that you please introduce themselves. I know you have your names in front of you, but please introduce yourself, as the first witness who came to the table did, with your name, your position and the department you are with.
Ms. Favereau: Yes. Karen Favereau. I am with Treasury Board Secretariat, and I am the Director of the Pension Program Management team.
Mr. Irwin: Stephen Irwin. I’m with the Department of National Defence, and I’m the Director of Pension and Social Programs.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Senator Simons, was that number 6?
Senator Simons: It is number 4.
Mr. Irwin: It comes up twice. They are interrelated.
The Deputy Chair: I thought it was number 6. It’s the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, no?
Senator Simons: It is the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act.
Ms. Favereau: Yes. It is number 4. The Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act is one that allows the authority to make changes to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. So number 4 and number 6 are somewhat related in that sense.
Senator Simons: But I had seen number 4 first.
The Deputy Chair: Everyone is following instructions then. Excellent. Thank you very much.
Senator K. Wells: I am scared to bring my number forward now. My question is for Global Affairs Canada. I will give you a chance to do the musical chairs.
Neil Brennan, Executive Director, Non-proliferation, Disarmament and Space, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you, senator. I am Neil Brennan, Executive Director for Non-proliferation, Disarmament and Space at Global Affairs.
Senator K. Wells: Perfect. Thank you. I think I have the right person, so I appreciate it. My question is related to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act and the request for the deferral. As we sit here, this treaty and legislation are seemingly more important than ever in the state of the world. I understand we are waiting for more countries to ratify it, perhaps as many as nine specific signatories.
Can you tell us who those signatories are and what efforts Canada is making to advocate on this important issue with those tardy signatories?
Mr. Brennan: Thank you for the question. Yes, in its simplest terms, the treaty focuses on the 44 countries that have nuclear technology or capabilities and means. For the treaty to come fully into force, all 44 must sign and ratify. Most countries have signed and ratified. Of the 44, I believe 35 have signed and ratified. Nine countries have yet to ratify. That includes China, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Russia and the United States. They have signed but not ratified. India, North Korea and Pakistan have neither signed nor ratified, and then the slightly curious case of Russia, which withdrew its ratification in November 2023. Those are the countries.
As far as Canada goes, in terms of our advocacy efforts on behalf of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, or CTBT, among the activities we partake in, we are a key part of a diplomatic grouping called Friends of the CTBT by which we advocate for the CTBT to be signed, ratified and implemented by other countries. That’s one type of activity, but we do a fair bit of diplomacy and advocacy work on behalf of the treaty at various UN and other forums.
Senator K. Wells: Great. Thank you.
Senator Tannas: I will jump around a bit. Chair, did I miss my chance to talk on measure 1?
The Deputy Chair: No.
Senator Tannas: Okay, great. Why don’t we start there? And then I will talk about Innovation, Science and Economic Development.
My understanding on this, Ms. Stinson, is that this is a 40-year-old bill and a 40-year-old measure that we started deferring in 2014, probably in that whole process of actually reviewing this, which I think started in 2011. It has been on the books for 40 years and has not been acted on.
We understand that this is a political issue, that the majority of the people affected or contemplated under this piece are political staff, but there are some, it sounds like, who perhaps are not. But we know that some of those people — you mentioned the Parliamentary Protective Service — are unionized and have all kinds of protections.
Would we be doing somebody a favour if we recommend that this be repealed? It seems like maybe there is a lack of courage for anybody to actually take this off the books lest they offend somebody who, after 40 years, is still hoping that this is going to be enacted. It seems this was part of the reason why Senator Banks and the Senate decided to go through this exercise.
This is Monty Python-esque. After 40 years, we are here having a serious conversation about it.
Do you think we should recommend or make a statement in our report to the Senate to repeal this? Do you really think it will be any better next year, the year after or the decade after, having been mouldering on the books for 40 years without being enacted?
Ms. Stinson: I would say that some parts of PESRA have been updated. Of course, Part II has not, but most recently, for example, in 2021, Part III was updated with respect to workplace harassment. Other aspects of it have been updated more recently.
I would suggest that, while the initial or preliminary assessment that was most recently done in the past year does highlight some considerations, further assessment is needed to effectively weigh the costs and benefits, because there are some potential costs to those parliamentary stakeholders who do not currently have various protections. Part of the next steps is to look at whether further consultation could bring to light some of those considerations.
Senator Tannas: Is that consultation with political folks? Is it fair to say this is a political issue?
Ms. Stinson: It’s parliamentary stakeholders.
Senator Tannas: Yes, understood. Thank you.
So then Innovation, Science and Technology — Samir and Marc-André. Could they join us? Thank you.
This year’s motion proposes a repeal of sections of the 2010 act to promote efficiency and adaptability in the Canadian economy. It is known as the anti-spam legislation. Specifically, the motion will repeal the law’s section giving citizens a private right of action to seek compensation.
Over the past five years, you have sought a deferral because of ongoing stakeholder engagement and reviews. Can you tell us what happened in those reviews? What in those reviews led the government to decide to repeal it rather than bring it into force as part of Canada’s anti-spam legislation?
Is part of this that the government intends to introduce a private right of action related to spam and new legislation, or is this dead?
Samir Chhabra, Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada: Thank you very much for the question; I appreciate it.
You are quite right that the government had previously asked to hold off on repeal and is, this year, moving ahead with repeal. There have been a number of consultations undertaken over the past few years, starting with the Canada’s Digital Charter consultations in 2018 onward, as well as consultations specifically oriented around the reform of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPEDA, which is Canada’s private sector privacy regime.
In more recent times, we also had a national AI sprint that you may have been following. That was under Minister Solomon’s direction and was taking in feedback from Canadians as well as from 28 task force experts. It received more than 11,000 pieces of feedback from the public on that consultation. These are all related elements that go together. There is also work that has been done in the 2023-24 period to reform Canada’s Competition Act, including bringing forward certain private rights of action in that context as well.
It’s always a balancing point to decide whether a certain element will be necessary to be brought into force and whether it will be useful in the space. There are two elements that have been proposed for repeal in this context: There’s the private right of action as well as linkage to the Telecommunications Act.
In the context of the repeal, this is about recognizing that the private right of action as it was constituted initially in the write-up of 2010 was going to be very challenging to bring into force without causing significant market disruption. It enabled for private rights of action to be undertaken on the allegations of spam being received. There is a very robust existing framework that the CRTC applies that has resulted in far less spam reaching Canadians’ mailboxes since it was put into place. That is part of a global decline that the CRTC and others are participating in. They have actually achieved a marked decline in the amount of spam in inboxes over the past 15 years.
Given that robust framework and that the CRTC is well placed to achieve effects — over $3 million in fines and over 3.8 million individual complaints received and managed by the CRTC’s Spam Reporting Centre since it was set up — it was considered unnecessary to go through the disruptions and challenges it would cause, both in terms of industry management of the issue as well as the pressure it would put on the courts, to enable the private right of action in this context.
Senator Tannas: Thank you. I appreciate that answer.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Tannas, I noticed that last question was item 10. We were trying to confine ourselves to items 1 through 5. That’s okay; you have carried on a bit further, and we will save time in that second part.
But let’s try to finish off items 1 to 5 first.
Senator Prosper: I would like to speak about item 1, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, with Ms. Stinson; and item 2, the Contraventions Act, with Marie-Claude Gervais.
Maybe I will start with you, Ms. Stinson. Following some of the questions from previous senators with respect to this and from what I’m reading — I look at the word “consultation” with parliamentary stakeholders. It has been noted that this has been ongoing for some time. Can you give me a marker in terms of the extent of consultations? What are the overriding features that are considered sufficient for purposes of consultation with these stakeholders? Could you provide a bit of guidance in that regard?
Ms. Stinson: Thank you very much for the question.
What has been done since November 2024 is a preliminary assessment by the labour program at ESDC. There has been no consultation with parliamentary stakeholders. However, given questions around parliamentary privilege with respect to bringing Part II of PESRA into force, there are considerations in that regard, where a potential next step could be consideration of consulting parliamentary stakeholders. However, no consultations have been undertaken, and no terms of reference in that regard have been developed. The assessment has been done by the labour program to date, though.
Senator Prosper: So is there an intent to consult?
Ms. Stinson: It is certainly an option that could be considered going forward. It would be a potential next step, yes.
Senator Prosper: You noted parliamentary privilege. What specifically comes to mind in that regard?
Ms. Stinson: It is anything with respect to the institutions within Parliament being able to manage their own affairs. It is about whether there is concern in terms of Part II coming into force coming into conflict with respect to parliamentary privilege.
Senator Prosper: Okay, thank you.
I have a question for you, Ms. Gervais, on the Contraventions Act. From my read of it, it seems to make quite a bit of sense to me why you would have statutory offences considered under a regime of tickets and offsetting the pressure of the summary convention process under the Criminal Code.
I understand there are outstanding agreements or negotiations with two provinces and the territories. How is that going? What are the underlying features that are really preventing those negotiations from being completed?
[Translation]
Marie-Claude Gervais, Senior Counsel and Deputy Director, Legal Services Division, Programs Branch, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you, Senator Prosper. My name is Marie-Claude Gervais, and I am Senior Counsel and Deputy Director, Legal Services Division, Programs Branch, Policy Sector, Department of Justice Canada.
[English]
I welcome your question, Senator Prosper. This has been at the centre of many of our concerns. Had Alberta and Saskatchewan agreed to implement the federal ticketing regime, we would claim full success in having implemented and properly enforced federal offences across the country.
Unfortunately, that has not been made possible. We’ve entertained quite concretely for many years — actually 15 years — the opportunity for those citizens living in these jurisdictions to have better access to justice, invoking the rule of law and defending the idea that should they commit minor offences, those designated as contraventions, they would be spared the need to appear before the court. I would certainly invite them to make proper representations as to why they have been maintaining their refusal to make progress.
On many occasions, we were able to secure mandates at the deputy minister, or DM, levels. Officials were identified with whom we’ve begun discussions, but those processes were unfortunately never successful. As we speak, those citizens have to appear before the court for minor offences. We’re talking about fishing quotas and parking tickets on federal lands.
The 2021 Evaluation of the Contraventions Act Program report did recommend that our department, beyond all the efforts invested, explore what we called an innovative approach. What I can share with the committee this afternoon is that we’ve exhausted all the means through which we can successfully implement the regime. What I’m sharing, in all transparency, is that our department is left with, ultimately, one last option: develop and implement an autonomous federal ticketing regime. What does this mean? Instead of relying, as we have been doing successfully for years, on provincial ticketing schemes, wishing to avoid duplication, we would build what would be the autonomous federal ticketing regime. Those provisions that have not been brought into force until today, which are those our discussion is about, would precisely allow us the opportunity to contemplate such a scenario should, again, our legal analysis —
The Deputy Chair: If you could complete your answer quickly, please. Thank you. We’re at seven minutes and 30 seconds on your round, and we need to go have a vote.
Ms. Gervais: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Since we do have a vote called for 5:27 on an amendment to Bill C-3, a government bill, I will suspend the committee until after the vote has taken place.
(Senator Arnot, Chair, in the chair)
The Chair: Senators, we’re resuming the study of the next group of acts. With respect to group numbers 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, are there any questions from any of the senators concerning any of those acts? Senator Simons, which act is it? Number 6?
Senator Simons: The Budget Implementation Act, number 7.
The Chair: Okay, number 7. Please come forward, sir. Thank you, Mr. Seoane.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much to our witness.
I want to understand, because this is one of the longer explanations. The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, which has never been brought into force, will now never be brought into force. Is that correct?
Ricardo Seoane, Executive Director, Procurement Branch, Strategic Policy Sector, Compliance and Integration Directorate, Public Services and Procurement Canada: With respect to number 7? I was here on part 18 of, I believe, maybe —
Senator Simons: This is the Budget Implementation Act, 2009, sections 394 and 401 to 404.
Julie Lemieux, Director, Policy Development and Integration, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Yes, that’s my item. Thank you for the question.
Senator Simons: I will pose the question again. As I understand this —
The Chair: You’re on the Budget Implementation Act, 2009, which is number 8 on the agenda.
Senator Simons: No, it’s number 7 on the agenda. Budget Implementation Act, 2009, sections 394 and 401 to 404. It’s at the bottom of page 3. I gather there are two different numbers.
The Chair: There are. I guess in terms of the agenda, you’re right, Senator Simons, it is number 7, and we have the correct witness to answer the questions of Senator Simons.
Senator Simons: All right, one more time — once upon a time, there was a thing called the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. It has never been brought into force.
Ms. Lemieux: Correct.
Senator Simons: It never will be brought into force.
Ms. Lemieux: That’s right.
Senator Simons: Because it was superseded by the Pay Equity Act.
Ms. Lemieux: Correct. The act from 2021.
Senator Simons: The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act dates from 2009.
Ms. Lemieux: Correct.
Senator Simons: And was never brought into force —
Ms. Lemieux: That’s right.
Senator Simons: — from 2009 until 2021 —
Ms. Lemieux: Correct.
Senator Simons: — when it was superseded?
Ms. Lemieux: Yes, that’s right.
Senator Simons: If it was superseded in 2021 and we’re now coming up to 2026, why are we deferring this?
Ms. Lemieux: Previously we had recommended that the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act be referred from repeal to ensure that the Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board could adjudicate a legacy public sector pay equity complaint —
Senator Simons: Which has been resolved?
Ms. Lemieux: Yes, I am pleased to confirm that has been resolved.
Senator Simons: So at was before.
Ms. Lemieux: Yes.
Senator Simons: And now?
Ms. Lemieux: We’re actively working on the repeal of the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, but through a different mechanism than the Statutes Repeal Act because there are other related provisions that need to be dealt with outside of the SRA process because they’re already in force. We’re proceeding with an order-in-council in order to group together all of the relevant sections and be able to deal with it through the order-in-council, in collaboration with the other departments that are responsible for some of the other sections that are involved.
Senator Simons: And then it will be repealed?
Ms. Lemieux: Correct, yes.
Senator Simons: Will you have to come back to us next year?
Ms. Lemieux: We shouldn’t have to, no. We are actively working on the order-in-council. We are collaborating with the other departments that are involved and with our legal services as well as the Department of Justice. We’re expecting we can proceed with the order-in-council in 2026.
Senator Simons: It does seem a bit surreal to me that we can pass something called the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act in 2009 and it never, ever comes into force, yet it’s still on the books and we can’t repeal it until all these ghostly little bits are bundled up.
Ms. Lemieux: Right. That is the preferred approach for dealing with the repeal, through the order-in-council, because if the provisions that have never been brought into force were to be repealed now, we would have to eventually go back and deal with the provisions that are in force through another mechanism, to come back and get those repealed.
The decision was made in consultation with the Department of Justice to proceed with this order-in-council so everything can be dealt with in the most efficient manner possible.
Senator Simons: Right. I think you were in the room when I was speaking to Mr. Irwin about an earlier matter. Would it be possible for you to let us know when this is all wrapped up?
Ms. Lemieux: Absolutely. Yes, we would be pleased to.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
Ms. Lemieux: Thank you.
Senator Tannas: I actually don’t have any questions, chair, but I wanted to ask a question of everybody, a show of hands. We’ve only been doing this exercise of actually having you come and explain this for a few years. I find it quite interesting. Before this, you used to send us a draft report. Maybe somebody looked at it; maybe they didn’t.
Can I have a show of hands on if this process is useful to you — the fact that we’ve kind of stepped it up and made everybody come and explain, and you can tell your bosses and so on? Is this helpful in getting some of this stuff off the books? Yes or no? We do not have many hands up. Is it not helpful? Okay, folks got timid. Thank you.
Senator Batters: I’m finding this whole process very confusing today because we have the one list from the Library of Parliament, which has different numbers of the items that we’re dealing with; and then we have a list from the government, which seems to be completely different numbers. Sometimes it accords to what the Library of Parliament list is, which actually has all of them on it. The government list only goes from 1 to 20. Sometimes someone is saying it’s a certain number, and it isn’t that number on the Library of Parliament list.
Before tomorrow’s meeting, could the government perhaps go through this and make sure we actually have the appropriate documents so we can be doing this in an efficient way?
The Chair: Does everyone have the Library of Parliament list? We have to pick one.
Senator Batters: I have that. It’s just that the government list with the annex has the more detailed explanations for a number of things.
The Chair: Do you want to use this one, then?
Senator Batters: I’d just like to use one, not three.
The Chair: I agree. Fortunately, I can blame the clerk for this because I wasn’t here. I’m just kidding. If I’m chairing, I would like to help everybody follow it along accurately. Do you have a preference?
Senator Batters: We have a representative of the Government Representative’s Office here today, and I’m asking if they could please, after the meeting today, go through this and make sure we have one appropriate document for tomorrow with different explanations as to what they want to accomplish with each of these.
Senator Duncan: I will have to take a look at it and raise the question with the legislative counsel. Chair, if you would just give some direction on which one you want to use.
The Chair: I think the best way — as the clerk advises me — is to use the 2025 annual report because I believe everyone has it. Not everyone has the Library of Parliament assessment.
Senator Duncan: Just to be clear as well, this Library of Parliament document was produced at the request of the committee; that is my understanding. This is the government’s attempt to be supportive of the committee.
The Chair: Okay. We’ve dealt with what I’m going to call the first part of item 7, the deferral. Ms. Lemieux has just spoken. Does anybody have any questions for Sarah Stinson? I see none. I’m going to move to the next person. Does anyone have any questions for Nicolas Marion?
Senator Simons: Mr. Chair, with respect, asking by the name of the person is a little more complicated than asking by the name of the act.
The Chair: Having received some advice on this, I’m going to use the annual report. On page 4, we have dealt with the Budget Implementation Act, 2009, section 394. Ms. Lemieux answered Senator Simons’s questions.
On that page 4, the next item is Budget Implementation Act, 2009, sections 401 to 404. Are there any questions from any of the senators regarding that section?
I don’t see any. The next one, on page 4, is the Payment Card Networks Act, sections 6 and 7. Mr. Nicolas Marion is here to answer any questions. Are there any questions on that? I see none.
Next, at the top of page 5, is An Act to Promote the Efficiency and Adaptability of the Canadian Economy by Regulating Certain Activities that Discourage Reliance on Electronic Means of Carrying out Commercial Activities — dispense? — sections 47 to 90. Any questions? I see none.
I move now to page 6. The first one is the Financial System Review Act, 2012, sections 54 to 59. Any questions? I see none.
The next one is Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act, sections 70 to 77. I see no questions.
The next one, the last on page 6, is Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, sections 459 to 463. Any questions?
Senator Simons, do you want Mr. Kevin Wagdin to answer this question? Please come forward, sir.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much, Mr. Wagdin, for coming forward. I want to understand the lag here because automatic enrolment was supposed to come into effect in 2012. It’s very important because a lot of people who don’t file their taxes on a regular basis, who don’t necessarily go through all the hoops to get the benefits to which they are entitled, tend to be people of low income and perhaps low information.
So what is the delay now if you’ve had the successful migration to the new IT platform in 2025? What is the hold-up?
Kevin Wagdin, Director, Old Age Security Policy and Legislation, Employment and Social Development Canada: Thank you very much for the question. We have been implementing large phases of automatic enrolment already. The first phase of automatic enrolment that we implemented was for full Old Age Security, or OAS, pensioners. That was done in 2013. We expanded that category of individuals in 2016 as well. So now about half of all now OAS pensioners go in to pay without the need for an application.
In 2017, we further expanded automatic enrolment to include the Guaranteed Income Supplement, or GIS. Again, anybody who is automatically enrolled for the Old Age Security Pension is also put onto what we call our lifetime list to make sure they can be assessed for GIS at any point when their income goes down.
The category of people who remain are for the remaining benefits, which are known as the allowances. There is the allowance and the allowance for the survivor. To provide some context, the last fiscal year, we paid 7.4 million individuals the pension, about 2.5 million people the Guaranteed Income Supplement, but fewer than 70,000 people an allowance. So it’s a much lower category — a smaller group of people.
We had been waiting for the overall migration of our OAS benefits onto a new IT platform prior to advancing any additional work on automatic enrolment. That’s happened in March 2025. Now all our benefits are being issued through that system. It has really unplugged or opened the floodgates for us to be able to do a lot more development work. There is now significant momentum on this.
As I am sure you can appreciate, there is also an interest in delivering benefits in the most efficient way possible under this government. That’s another reason why this has gained some momentum. My expectation is that, at this time next year, we would be able to give you more of a status update as opposed to an explanation for why we need to repeal.
Senator Simons: Do you anticipate that, by this time next year, you will be ready to repeal?
Mr. Wagdin: I can’t authoritatively say that. There are a couple of different things that have to happen every time we enter one of these phases. One of the most significant is that we actually have to do regulatory amendments. We have to prescribe the information that we would use in the absence of a statement of eligibility from a client. Regulation packages are not necessarily under our control; they can take 8 to 10 months. I can say, though, that we are looking at all aspects of automatic enrolment to make sure that when our next expansion happens, we are getting — as I think I mentioned before — the greatest bang for our buck. We want to ensure that what we’re doing is leveraging all the information that the government has to ensure we can get as many people as possible into our programs.
Senator Simons: This is literally the last 70,000 or 100,000 people that we are talking about. Thank you. That was a very good answer — nice and clear.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: My question isn’t about the repeal of a specific act. May I ask it now? It’s actually about the process.
Let me start by thanking you for being here. I have tremendous respect for the public sector as a whole. I myself used to work in the public sector. I’m aware of all the work that went on behind the scenes in order for you to discuss all of this with us today.
I have a two-part question. Here’s the first part. What happens to the regulations of each statute being repealed? Are the regulatory amendments or the repeal of the regulations themselves published in the Canada Gazette? How do you make sure that the statute or provision being repealed doesn’t result in a legal vacuum? Does the Department of Justice coordinate and review everything, or is each department responsible for ensuring a legal vacuum does not arise?
[English]
Mr. Wagdin: I believe I would have to defer to my colleagues at the Department of Justice on that. Apologies.
[Translation]
Ms. DuPont: Thank you for your question.
Obviously, the Legislative Services Branch works with all of our clients to ensure that the legislative mechanisms required to repeal the provisions or bring them into force are properly coordinated. We work with the client and their departmental legal services unit to identify the most suitable mechanism. I’m not sure whether that answers your question.
Senator Saint-Germain: It does in part. However, the public and those affected by the repeal need to be informed, so on a technical level, implementation is prescribed by regulation. Therefore, are the regulations being repealed or the partial regulatory amendments that need to be made published in the Canada Gazette?
Ms. DuPont: That is the usual process, yes.
Senator Saint-Germain: Very good.
In terms of ensuring that the repeal of any statutes or provisions does not inadvertently create a legal vacuum, is the Department of Justice responsible for reviewing the impact of the repeal, together with the departments in question?
Ms. DuPont: That’s a great question. I would say that the broader Department of Justice family works with the various parts of the department to make sure that’s not an issue. The department has a range of centres with different types of expertise, including an advisory team, to handle these kinds of situations, precisely to make sure that Canadians aren’t faced with a legal vacuum. We work with our client departments on that.
Senator Saint-Germain: I know these are technical questions, but I find them interesting. Are the regulations automatically repealed once the bill is passed, or is there a window, whereby the legislation remains in force until the regulations themselves are repealed?
Ms. DuPont: I think I’ll defer to my colleague on that.
[English]
Josée Filion, Deputy Director and Senior Counsel, Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you. Our branch is responsible for this process. I apologize for any confusion earlier with the order you are following.
[Translation]
It depends on each case. The act determines when the legislation will be repealed, and whether it’s necessary to fill the void with something else. As you’ve heard, some departments wait until the process is complete before proceeding with the repeal of the provision.
Senator Saint-Germain: Does that mean they hold off on the repeal until they are confident that there won’t be a legal vacuum or that an alternative solution is in place?
Ms. Filion: Yes, precisely. They hold off until the underlying policy has been fully developed.
Senator Saint-Germain: It’s a complex process. Thank you for being here to explain all of it to us and for making sure that there are no legal vacuums. Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, we now move to page 7, Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, sections 361 to 384. I am seeing no questions.
I believe we are near the end, but out of an abundance of caution, I want to make sure that nothing has been missed that any senator wanted to ask on any section that has not been called yet. I am seeing no senators with such concerns.
I thank all the witnesses for coming. Sorry about the interruption. This is the way the Senate works. We are really happy that you are here to help us understand all these issues. I thank the Library of Parliament analysts and the clerk for helping me manage this meeting tonight.
(The committee adjourned.)