THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 6, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met with videoconference this day at 6:49 p.m. [ET] to study the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027, except for Vote 1 from the Library of Parliament.
Senator Éric Forest (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: I wish to welcome all of the senators as well as the viewers across the country who are watching us on sencanada.ca.
I am Éric Forest, senator from Quebec and deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. I would now like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Hébert: Good evening. Martine Hébert from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Ross: Welcome. I’m Krista Ross, senator from New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez from Quebec.
Senator Gignac: Good evening. Clément Gignac from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Pupatello: Good evening. Sandra Pupatello, an Ontario senator.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, today we continue our study of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027.
For our first panel today, we are pleased to welcome Maude-Émilie Pagé, Vice-President, Indigenous and Stakeholder Relations, and Jeremy Latta, Director, Government Communications and Reporting, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. From Natural Resources Canada, we welcome Francis Brisson, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Management and Services Sector; and Drew Leyburne, Assistant Deputy Minister, Energy Systems Sector.
Welcome and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear today. We will now hear opening remarks from Ms. Pagé.
Ms. Pagé, you have the floor.
Maude-Émilie Pagé, Vice-President, Indigenous and Stakeholder Relations, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited: Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Maude-Émilie Pagé, and I am the Vice-President of Indigenous and Stakeholder Relations at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, or AECL. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
AECL is Canada’s nuclear Crown corporation. We are responsible for owning and overseeing Canada’s national nuclear laboratories and facilities, most notably the Chalk River Laboratories, located approximately 200 kilometres northwest of here.
Chalk River has played a central role in Canada’s nuclear history. It was the site of Canada’s first controlled nuclear fission reaction, the birthplace of CANDU reactor technology, which today supplies roughly 60% of Ontario’s energy, and a long-standing centre of innovation supporting the production of medical isotopes used in cancer treatments in Canada and internationally.
As the Government of Canada advances a new nuclear energy strategy to strengthen clean energy and energy security, Canada’s national nuclear laboratories remain a strategic national asset. They not only support the federal government but also play an important role in supporting Canada’s nuclear fleet.
At the same time, AECL addresses the legacy of the past. While Canada can be proud of its nuclear accomplishments, historical waste management practices do not reflect today’s standards or expectations.
As a result, AECL is cleaning up historical and legacy nuclear waste. This cleanup effort is substantial and long-term. It involves complex remediation and decommissioning activities that will continue for decades. Importantly, these activities are done through deep engagement with Indigenous peoples across all our sites and on their territories on which we operate.
I am particularly proud of the historic Long-Term Partnership Agreement, LPA, that AECL has signed with the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation, which provides for their meaningful involvement in planning and monitoring activities at the Chalk River site, including their consent for our proposed facility to dispose of low-level radioactive waste.
Before turning to AECL’s plans and forecast expenditure, I’d like to briefly explain our operating model, which is unique among federal entities.
Since 2015, AECL has operated under a government-owned contractor-operated model whereby a private sector contractor, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, or CNL, operates our sites on our behalf.
Last year, AECL completed a competitive procurement process to identify a new private sector contractor to manage Canadian Nuclear Laboratories. That process resulted in Nuclear Laboratory Partners of Canada being selected as the preferred bidder to manage and operate CNL going forward. They assumed management of CNL in December 2025.
AECL’s role is to provide strategic direction to ensure alignment with government priorities and the public interest, and we provide oversight to ensure performance and value for money.
[English]
With that context, I will quickly go over AECL’s plans and activities. For 2026-27, our projected expenditures are $1.7 billion and fall into two main areas: decommissioning and waste management, as well as operating our nuclear laboratories.
First, decommissioning and waste management is AECL’s largest mission, with $1.1 billion forecasted. Major activities include the ongoing decommissioning and waste management at the Chalk River Laboratories, including plans to construct a Near Surface Disposal Facility for the disposal of our low-level radioactive waste; the decommissioning of three old prototype reactors in Ontario and Quebec; the decommissioning of the Whiteshell Laboratories in Manitoba; and the cleanup of historic contamination in the municipalities of Port Hope and Clarington in Ontario, as part of the Port Hope Area Initiative.
Our second area of focus is the operation of the Chalk River Laboratories. We are investing in science activities — $207 million. And we are investing in the capital renewal of our site — $352 million in 2026-27.
In science, we are supporting 15 federal departments and agencies through the Federal Nuclear Science and Technology Work Plan, which includes work on health, the environment, national and global security, nuclear preparedness, emergency response, as well as the development of nuclear technologies.
As we revitalize our nuclear laboratories, our keystone project is the construction of the new Advanced Nuclear Materials Research Centre. This facility will be the centrepiece of our campus and the most significant nuclear research facility in Canada containing modern hot cells, laboratories and fuel facilities unique within Canada and the world.
[Translation]
Together, these activities reflect the breadth and complexity of AECL’s mandate: managing Canada’s nuclear legacy, investing in national research infrastructure, advancing nuclear science in support of government priorities, and doing so responsibly, and in partnership with Indigenous communities.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I would be pleased to answer your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. Pagé.
Mr. Brisson, the floor is yours.
Francis Brisson, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Management and Services Sector, Natural Resources Canada: Good evening, Mr. Chair. My name is Francis Brisson, and I am the Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Deputy Minister of the Corporate Management and Services Sector at Natural Resources Canada.
[English]
I’m joined at the table by my colleague Drew Leyburne, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Energy Systems Sector, and, in the room, by other NRCan officials who may come forward to respond to questions in their areas of expertise.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss Natural Resources Canada’s Main Estimates for 2026-27.
Let me begin by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe.
In the Main Estimates for 2026-27, NRCan is seeking a total of $4.9 billion, comprising $884.8 million for operating expenditures, $51.8 million for capital expenditures, $2.4 billion for grants and contributions and $1.5 billion in statutory authorities.
[Translation]
This represents a net decrease of $253.8 million, corresponding to a 5% reduction compared to the 2025-26 Main Estimates, which totalled $5.1 billion.
[English]
These Main Estimates demonstrate responsible planning, with time-limited programs winding down as intended, resources being reallocated and new investments scaling up to address today’s most urgent economic, energy, and climate priorities.
[Translation]
I would now like to highlight certain items included in this year’s Main Estimates that guide our work.
[English]
We are strengthening Canada’s economic security by building complete critical-mineral value chains here at home. Our total commitment of $2.3 billion between 2023-24 and 2029-30 for critical minerals reinforces Canada’s growing role as a trusted supplier of these minerals needed for batteries, electric vehicles, clean technologies, telecommunications equipment and modern defence systems.
At a time of global uncertainty and heightened competition for resources, these investments position Canada as a reliable supplier, while strengthening our own economic security.
This year’s estimates include an increase of just over $198 million for critical minerals to unlock the infrastructure, technology and processing capacity needed to turn Canada’s mineral wealth into a long-term opportunity.
These investments work with the government’s efforts to advance major projects, reducing risk, accelerating timelines and attracting private capital to build complete Canadian value chains.
We are delivering the $1.5-billion First and Last Mile Fund, to be invested between 2026-27 and 2029-30 to advance mining and infrastructure projects that are key to developing Canada’s critical-mineral supply chains and getting critical minerals to market.
This will help create jobs across Canada, including in remote and northern communities. It advances Indigenous partnership opportunities, and it helps Canada meet global demand responsibly and transparently.
We are modernizing Canada’s energy systems so they remain affordable, clean and resilient in the face of shifting global market conditions and rising climate risks. To do this, we are seeking $392 million for Smart Renewables and Electrification Pathways so we can further move towards renewable power, strengthen power transmission and modernize grids.
We are also asking for $186 million in these estimates for the new Biofuels Production Incentive to support producers facing rapid changes in global markets. Strengthening domestic production keeps jobs in Canada and supports cleaner fuels in industry and transportation.
We are taking significant steps in the estimates to support our forest sector as it pivots to new products and markets, including $157 million for forest transformation programs. The estimates also include $71 million to empower our wildfire responses, including funding for firefighter equipment and training, additional aerial firefighting capacity and integrating Indigenous knowledge into fire management.
Across initiatives, such as Smart Renewables and Electrification Pathways, Clean Energy for Rural and Remote Communities, wildfire response and critical minerals development, we are supporting Indigenous leadership, including equity ownership and long-term participation in natural resource and energy projects. This accounts for $1.3 billion, or almost 40% of the $3.4 billion requested in voted authorities.
Finally, I would add that these estimates fully integrate the reductions required under the Government of Canada Comprehensive Expenditure Review, and I can confirm that NRCan has achieved its target.
[Translation]
With that, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to discuss our department’s Main Estimates. My colleagues and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Brisson.
We will now move on to the question period. I would like to remind senators that you will have a maximum of four minutes for the first round. I might be a little more lenient tonight. Please ask your questions directly to the witnesses, and I would ask the witnesses to answer succinctly, please, so that we can ask all the questions that concern us.
[English]
Senator Ross: My question is for Ms. Pagé. In 2026-27, I note that the request is a decrease of 12.4% from last year’s Main Estimates. I wonder if you can give us a sense of the decrease of the number of AECL employees over the next fiscal year and what impact that will have on your activities, and from my perspective, being from New Brunswick, what impact it will have there.
Also, considering the functions of AECL, to what extent will the activities of waste management, medical alleviation — these types of things — be affected by the decrease in your funding in the coming year?
Ms. M. Pagé: Thank you for the question.
Maybe the first thing I would say is the variance you will see in our Main Estimates, even over the last four or five years, is mostly related to variations in large capital projects. It’s not necessarily related to employees, but because we have such large capital projects at our Chalk River Laboratories, including both in-site renewal and decommissioning and waste management — often, decommissioning projects are quite large in and of themselves, and sometimes they also involve the construction of large buildings, either for the storage or sorting of waste — what you will see over time is a fluctuation based on how those projects are progressing and when big capital expenditures are made on these particular capital projects. It’s not necessarily to do with staff itself.
You asked specifically about the employee count decrease at AECL. AECL is actually quite a small Crown corporation because our role is mostly that of oversight of our contractors. Within our organization, we’re about 60 people, and we were not anticipating employee decreases in the coming years.
One thing I wanted to note, though, is one of our sites is actually a cybersecurity research centre in New Brunswick, where Canadian Nuclear Laboratories works with the universities there and other partners on cybersecurity. There’s no research on radioactive material, but there’s lots of work done on cybersecurity of industrial control systems. You can imagine, in the nuclear industry, having control over their control systems is quite important, as is being able to guard against attacks and threats in that area. There’s lots of research that goes on there, in New Brunswick, specifically in Fredericton.
We work with partners in universities as well and with partners internationally on cybersecurity of control systems.
Senator Ross: Thank you.
I wonder if you can help me understand if there’s a connection between what’s happening with small modular reactors, or SMRs, in particular, some of the industry changes taking place right now in New Brunswick and the work that you’re doing in the CANDU work.
Ms. M. Pagé: Sure. Most of the work that we do with small modular reactors has to do with upfront research. We’re not constructing any SMRs, but we often work with SMR technology vendors to use our facilities. The Chalk River Laboratories are quite unique from a research perspective. It’s not something that you can find at universities, given the level of material and security that’s required for that. What often happens — in fact, we have a program that cost-shares research activities with SMR technology vendors to leverage our facilities and our unique expertise at Chalk River to advance some of their challenges and early thinking on their technologies. It can be something to do with materials, which are quite important in reactors, as well as testing of fuel, modelling and those kinds of things.
That’s our niche, I would say, in SMRs at this point; it’s on the research side. We’ll work with various technology vendors to that effect.
Senator Ross: I am curious if you’ve been working with Moltex.
Ms. M. Pagé: I do not know the answer to that, but I can look into it and get back to you.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: My question is for the officials from the Department of Natural Resources. I do note in the list of grants, which can be found on page 155 of the budgetary appropriations, that there is a large decrease in grants to support home renovations, dropping from $759 million to $233 million. Is it because there were adjustments to be made as a result of the budget update? Will that be going to Canada Homes?
Mr. Brisson: Thank you for the question. That’s because of programs that are ending and that were major programs for the department. The reduction of these programs reflects the budget cuts and the end of the programs.
I will ask my colleague Frank to explain the program in greater detail so you understand how we got here, how the program ended and where we will go from there.
Frank Des Rosiers, Assistant Deputy Minister, Energy Efficiency and Technology Sector, Natural Resources Canada: You’re right; it’s a steep drop, but it can be explained quite simply. It was the last year of the program, and it turned out to be very popular. We had a record number of grant applications from Canadians, who saw this as a golden opportunity to renovate their homes, so much so that the funds allocated for previous years were completely used up. As a result, the program was terminated.
That said, in terms of results, we note that 412,000 Canadian homes received subsidies, which led to $386 in gains and savings per household in terms of energy efficiency as a result of various measures. The total cost of the program was $1.8 billion over the period. It turned out to be a very popular program, and that’s why the drop was more pronounced. It exceeded the initial planning in terms of the rate at which the program was used.
Senator Hébert: So, as I understand it, it was a retrofit program to generate energy efficiency gains for residential buildings?
Mr. Des Rosiers: That is absolutely correct.
Senator Hébert: I would like to follow up on my colleague Senator Ross’s question about small nuclear reactors. I believe the Department of Natural Resources also has a program for that. Do you both work together? Ms. Pagé, you mentioned that you work with people in the industry. Do you work with —
[English]
Drew Leyburne, Assistant Deputy Minister, Energy Systems Sector, Natural Resources Canada: The short answer is yes. We work very closely on a daily basis with AECL. AECL reports to Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources, so there’s a structural relationship there as well. And whether it’s on the technology side, the waste-remediation side or technology development, more generally, we’re very close partners.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: As I understand it, the departmental budget provides just $9 million for the deployment of small reactors. Is that correct? Are we talking about small modular reactors?
[English]
Mr. Leyburne: Yes, that is a program that is sunsetting as well. It’s the emerging SMR program we had. We did work closely with the entire nuclear family, with AECL and others. We do spend more money within the department using our existing resources on nuclear policy, but primarily a policy program at this point.
The funding for nuclear projects, like large-build projects — the small modular reactor at Darlington, Ontario — was funded through the Canada Growth Fund, which is not part of NRCan.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: So the amount will be transferred to the Canada Growth Fund?
Mr. Leyburne: Yes.
Senator Hébert: That’s what I thought. Thank you.
Senator Galvez: I have two questions. My first question is for Ms. Pagé and it pertains to small modular reactor technology, or SMRs. I am an engineer and I remembered, while reading about the history of the nuclear industry in Canada, that it has been 80 years since the CANDU reactors were developed.
[English]
There have been several efforts, several moments in which we were supposed to develop small modular nuclear reactors, but we haven’t.
Now, in this budget, you’re saying we are going to do two things: We are going to keep going with the decommissioning and taking care of waste, and we are going to advance because the government has announced a new energy strategy in which nuclear is there. And actually, I heard in the news that our Prime Minister is selling the nuclear compact reactors which we don’t have yet.
Can you explain to me how we’re going to develop this in the next year so that we can sell nuclear compact reactors?
Mr. Leyburne: So, Canada is a leader in small modular reactors in the sense that we are building the first in the G7 grid-scale SMR. It is not Canadian technology; it is GE Hitachi technology that’s being built in Darlington. But the reason Canada has been so enthusiastic about being first is there are many first-mover advantages.
The supply chain around the building of this SMR is Canadianizing as a result of us being the first location. There are Canadian expertise, technology vendors and other companies who are already starting to export their expertise to other countries. So while it is not a CANDU or Canadian-based technology, there are many advantages to Canada moving first in this space.
Senator Galvez: We used to have all of these advantages when we were working with the French people. And I remember very well when CANDU was sold to SNC-Lavalin, and they were supposed to — what are the other advantages that will make it happen this time?
Mr. Leyburne: So, AtkinsRéalis, which is now the licensee for the CANDU technology, is presently working on a next-generation — well, multiple technologies but, in particular, a technology called MONARK, which is a gigawatt-scale reactor. They’re looking at deploying a version domestically and also a version that would be applicable for export.
They’re looking at finalizing the design in the next five years or so, but they are very much active in the current bid that Ontario is performing to select a technology. The MONARK technology is one of two technologies being considered by Ontario.
Senator Galvez: Okay. So you’re crossing your fingers?
Mr. Leyburne: It is a credible technology choice, and they’re working with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, or CNSC, as the regulator right now to get clearances to continue the design work.
Senator Galvez: My second question is for Mr. Brisson.
[Translation]
Thank you very much for being here to answer our questions. We know that China controls 90% of the entire critical minerals value chain. It’s not just the production part, but the entire chain, because they make manufactured products, chips and electronics for satellites and defence. They found those critical minerals in mine tailings. So that is a tremendous asset because they just added value to waste that had no value.
How are we going to do the research?
Mr. Brisson: Claudine Pagé from our department is here to help answer the question.
Claudine Pagé, Director General, Minerals Programs Branch, Lands and Minerals Sector, Natural Resources Canada: Thank you very much for the question. One of the programs we have at Natural Resources Canada includes the development of critical mineral processes and processing. That includes the possibility of developing recycling projects and projects where value can be found in former mines, which also have a very large amount of tailings. This is part of diversifying the source of critical minerals. For rare earths in particular, we are already supporting a few projects through these programs, especially on the recycling side. So there are a few projects that we can tell you more about and give you some information.
[English]
Senator Galvez: It was mentioned in the introductory remarks that you will develop the complete critical-mineral value chain. I understand that this means not only constructing and producing but also refining and doing some manufacturing after. What are the types of products that you will look to manufacture here?
Ms. C. Pagé: In terms of the Department of Natural Resources, we’re really focused on the upstream and the midstream of the value chain. That means getting products and technologies to a certain level until they can produce into the downstream.
So, for example, let’s say we’re building batteries or magnets, because magnets are really the product from rare earths. We’re really trying to diversify the source of rare earths. In Canada, we have some significant deposits; we have some very interesting projects in Quebec and B.C. and other projects that we’re supporting right now through different tools.
One of the tools that we lead on, and which is part of what we’re reporting on, is the infrastructure, the enabling infrastructure to be able to access the upstream through mining, but also supporting processing technologies. So for rare earths to become magnets, for example, we’re looking at projects — there is the Ucore project we’re supporting in Ontario, where the difficulty is developing our own expertise and technology to refine the rare earths and separate them.
China is the lead on those kinds of technologies, but we are trying to develop our own abilities to do that so that then the rare earths can be extracted and used in magnet production, which can then apply to motors or a multitude of applications in the defence space as well.
So we’re really tackling it from the upstream to the midstream, all the way to the actual application and how we can work with allies that are looking to do that.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Welcome and good evening to the witnesses on this evening of great listening. I think a lot of people are also listening to us on their little screens.
First, it’s rare to hear praise, but I want to congratulate the Department of Natural Resources. We often look at departmental results and criticize them if they are not satisfactory. Out of 60 indicators, though, there are only three that you have not met. With results like that, I think you get the top prize. When things are going well, it’s important to recognize that.
Madam, I should have told you that we can continue the conversation on critical minerals; you’ll see if you want to come back to the table or not.
China has developed a lot of expertise in refining; that’s where it’s happening. What pertains to national security? How is Natural Resources Canada involved? If it’s not you, who decides that we can collaborate with China on some things but not on others? Things will change because we now have a strategic partnership with China.
I have to say that I am the co-chair of the Canada-China Legislative Association, so this whole China file is of interest to me. I want to know Canada’s position on our collaboration with China. What pertains to national security? Who decides? Is it your department, is it Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or is it the Department of National Defence? Correct me if I’m wrong, but 95% of all global refining of critical minerals is done by China. How can we develop our autonomy if we do not collaborate? I would like some clarification.
Ms. C. Pagé: Those are very good questions, and it’s really at the centre of the Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy to develop our capabilities in Canada. We certainly have some very promising sources in terms of mines and raw materials, but China really has a considerable advantage in terms of processing.
China has developed certain technologies over the years, and that has created some vulnerability. What is important for Canada — which has to work with other countries that have the same interest — is to ensure production so that value chains have what they need to produce. A lot of work has been done in recent months, particularly because Canada was the G7 president. So we have built an alliance with other countries through the production alliance. We need to talk together and say what needs to be developed by other countries to ensure that supply chains are always available.
Senator Gignac: China has developed a great deal of expertise with regard to sustainable development and respect for the environment, because there are a lot of greenhouse gas emissions when all these critical minerals are processed.
We see how much China dominates in the electric vehicle sector; they’ve reached that point; there are of course economies of scale. Are there any possible research collaborations, or does Washington decide who we can work with on critical minerals?
Ms. C. Pagé: We’re looking at a number of technologies that have been developed in China, for example. The technologies are not always available. That’s part of the challenge, because we don’t necessarily know how to process critical minerals. Some of those technologies are very restricted and you can’t necessarily access them. That’s why we’re focusing on innovation, so we can develop our own knowledge.
In some cases, we can go and get the technologies, adopt them and transfer them so they can be applied in mines and for the types of products we have in Canada. For some projects, we’ve been able to directly adopt and adapt technologies, such as for lithium processing. We are looking at certain technologies. In the case of rare earths in Saskatchewan, there is a research centre looking at how to do the processing.
Senator Gignac: In the United States, the Pentagon is thinking about partnering with companies in this sector. In Canada, is Natural Resources Canada looking at partnering with the private sector?
Ms. C. Pagé: Given developments in recent months through the G7 and our desire to develop value chains where we have more control over production, I would point out that two announcements were made in October that involved a much more proactive approach with the industry and other players.
For example, we signed an offtake purchase agreement with Nouveau Monde Graphite and Rio Tinto for the production of scandium. Graphite and scandium are two examples of China’s great degree of control over primary sources and processing. In addition, we recognize that if we really want the production of these products in Canada to be successful, we need to take a more integrated approach between what the government can support and what the industry can contribute.
In the case of the Nouveau Monde Graphite mine, the Canada Growth Fund, the Canada Infrastructure Bank and several partners worked together to ensure the project was a success.
Senator Gignac: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Pupatello: My question is for Ms. Pagé. With regard to the nuclear waste, I can’t tell from the materials here if there is any money that is funding research around the reuse of nuclear waste. That had been talked about 15 years ago about reusing it or finding a way to reinvigorate it with energy so that it would mean a lot less waste because it’s in use for a lot longer. Is there some of that going on with your funding?
Ms. M. Pagé: The short answer is yes. There are research projects that are being undertaken to support the decommissioning of waste management. I will admit that it is a much smaller part of the funding, and, actually, it’s related to the question from Senator Ross from earlier, because we did look it up. Yes, we have been working with Moltex, and part of what Moltex is working on is the reuse of used fuel in their reactor. So there are some linkages there.
Senator Pupatello: My next question is for Natural Resources. I want to talk about the trees. It actually identifies 2 billion trees in that report. Some of that number was a little bit in question when the original budget was tabled. Was it 1 billion or 2 billion trees? I want to add that I come from a region that is almost totally denuded. We have 8% tree cover in Windsor-Essex compared to where most of your officials live in the Ottawa area, where it’s almost 40%.
So you can imagine how denuded we are my way. When I look at the hundreds of millions assigned for those 2 billion trees, they probably should all go to my county. That would help us raise that percentage dramatically because agriculture has taken a toll on the number of trees. I’m curious to know if you look at these programs by virtue of where the need is the greatest. We’re also a border that sees the impact of pollution that comes across from Michigan. Although Zug Island was closed officially, there is still a lot of pollution that comes across the board, so the tree cover is even more necessary.
Let me just add that I know you have a terrific official who comes from my hometown, who is sitting behind you somewhere. So he will probably attest to all the information I’m giving you. Could I hear your comment on that?
Mr. Brisson: Glenn Hargrove from the department is here and will be able to explain the breakdown of the numbers.
Glenn Hargrove, Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada: Thanks very much. Under the 2 Billion Trees, or 2BT, program, there has been a lot of discussion about the speed of the progress. One of the areas that has been very successful has been in terms of urban forestry and planting. When we’re talking about planting in urban settings, we’re working with municipalities directly, and we’re also working through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, or FCM, who are working as an aggregator for different projects in an urban setting.
Senator Pupatello: Did you say, “working with”?
Mr. Hargrove: With the FCM, it’s not matching. It’s that we have an agreement with them, and then they partner with individual municipalities to deliver the tree-planting projects.
Senator Pupatello: So you divide the money through the NFN? Is that what you mean?
Mr. Hargrove: There are two different ways. Some are direct with municipalities. There’s also that sort of larger umbrella agreement with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, where they’re working with those groups as well, on the ground.
Senator Pupatello: Would you focus your funding based on where the need is the greatest?
Mr. Hargrove: Yes, it’s based on an application system. We would take in applications, look at them and judge them on their merits. Like I said, we actually exceeded the spending and the expected tree-planting targets under that urban stream. We actually have exceeded those goals.
Senator Pupatello: I know you’ve had opportunities to use new technologies in this area in particular. Can you tell me how involved you are in the innovation programs where companies come forward with these new, great ways to get trees planted? Are you involved on the innovation side of this?
Mr. Hargrove: Sure. You’ll see in the estimates, for instance, that we have our Forest Innovation Program, which provides funding to organizations like FPInnovations, which does R&D on the value chain in the forest sector, including on the upstream.
Through the 2 Billion Trees program, we funded some pilot projects, for instance, looking at drone-based seeding technologies, that sort of thing.
We also have the IFIT program, Investments in Forest Industry Transformation, where we’re looking at moving from the development of technology into commercialization and driving that transformation. That’s mostly on the manufacturing side in the forest sector. We do a lot of that work.
Then, on the forestry side, we actually have a large research program within the Canadian Forest Service as well that looks at sustainable forest management, at wildfires, climate change, pests and those sorts of things across the country. We have research centres across the country and researchers who are looking at those sorts of issues.
Senator Pupatello: How do the pilot projects work out, for example, with drone technology? You would have been funding, through some mechanism, these private start-ups, for example, doing that sort of thing. How did they work out?
Mr. Hargrove: I would say there were some advancements there. One of the challenges with drone seeding, particularly in the context of the 2 Billion Trees program, is that it’s hard to get the data on the exact number of trees that are being “planted” through those mechanisms. There are specific contexts where drone seeding is one of the only ways you can actually plant trees, whether it’s a steep slope or in an area of post-fire reclamation where the terrain is really hazardous and those sorts of things. Drone seeding is necessary there, but there are some challenges with it as well, particularly when we’re in a context where it’s harder to find seeds. Some of that is a challenge.
I would say the results vary. It is like an emerging way. Certainly, in certain contexts, it’s very appropriate to be planting trees that way. That’s something that’s done quite a bit in Ontario, for example. There are arguments in favour of that in certain contexts.
Senator Pupatello: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. That concludes the first round of questions. We have about 10 minutes left for the second round, so I would ask you to limit yourselves to just one question.
[English]
Senator Ross: I have another question related to AECL. You mention that your work is done through contractors. I know that Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, CNL, is a premier science-and-tech lab that works under you.
Can you help us understand the relationship in terms of reporting, performance measurement and transparency between AECL and CNL?
Ms. M. Pagé: Our model is called government-owned, contractor-operated. For all intents and purposes, we contract Canadian Nuclear Laboratories to manage and operate our sites on our behalf.
How this works in practice is that AECL sets priorities and direction for CNL. They will prepare annual plans that we approve every year. Those include both their activities and their funding, and then they have to manage within those plans.
We’ll also oversee their performance through ongoing oversight, basically daily dialogue with our counterparts in terms of what they’re doing, and on-the-ground oversight as well, and then using various performance measurement tools. We use the Earned Value Management System, known as EVMS, which is fairly standard in the industry for project management purposes, to look at their performance.
The other thing we do is have a full line of sight into all of their audits and internal reviews. We can ask for internal reviews as well. We can ask for our auditors to go in and look at their work, both from a financial perspective and also from the performance and actual management side of things, and also technical projects. We can bring both your standard EY and KPMG from a management perspective to see if they have the right risk-management approach in place, but we can also bring in specialized expertise on decommissioning complex buildings with high hazardous context. Then we’ll look over those particular project plans to see if all the right procedures are in place to make sure it’s safe.
On top of all of that, I would say AECL looks over the performance and value for money. Are the activities aligned with our priorities and value for money from a Canadian perspective?
On top of that, there is an independent nuclear regulator. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has a slightly different role than ours, which is alignment and compliance with the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and all of its regulations and licence conditions that it imposes on licensees.
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories is the holder of the licences, so they are accountable to the commission to demonstrate that they can perform their activities safely and that they have all of the right management systems in place, including everything from safety procedures to environmental monitoring programs and internal governance to make sure that the organization has the proper controls in place from a nuclear perspective.
Senator Galvez: My question is to NRCan. In this budget, you are asking for $372.9 million to give support to Smart Renewables and Electrification Pathways.
What do you call Smart Renewables and Electrification Pathways?
Mr. Leyburne: Obviously, it’s a very broad category, as you’re alluding to. In this case, in practical terms, it has funded pretty much any kind of electricity generation that is not fossil-fuel-derived.
Senator Galvez: Hydro-Québec has announced that we will receive permits to put solar panels in our homes. We’ve been waiting for 10 years. Finally, it’s happening. Will the province receive part of this support for programs such as this one?
Mr. Leyburne: It’s possible. A large proportion of that funding that was mentioned is actually managed through an envelope we call the Critical Regional Priorities stream, which is where provinces and territories identify their highest priorities in renewable energy, and we fund them.
In this particular case, I don’t believe Quebec has put this project forward, but we do have a number of projects with Quebec that involve solar, mostly on the grid side as opposed to residential rooftop solar. We do have a program; the Canada Greener Homes retrofit program funded solar PV for residential purposes, as an example.
Senator Galvez: Do we know how much greenhouse gas emissions you have avoided by this?
Mr. Leyburne: Yes. It is one of the performance metrics for when we finalize the program. We are tracking it on a routine basis. It’s one of the selection criteria for projects.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: I’d like to come back to critical minerals. I understand the strategy, and that we want to see how we can boost this development. My question is about the timeline. Many experts say it’s all well and good, but it’ll take several years to get there. Ms. Pagé, given your strategy, do you have an idea of the related timetables? Will it take one year, two years, five years, 10 years or 15 years?
Ms. C. Pagé: That’s an excellent question, and one we’re asking ourselves as well. One thing we’re looking at is whether the programs can support project acceleration. We look at what the barriers are. Is it access to capital? Building a mine is often expensive, extremely expensive in some cases. In some cases, it is a matter of regulation, because we have to make sure all the steps are followed. In other cases, it’s infrastructure. There’s no road to get to many of these mines; there’s no access. That means you have to think about the infrastructure around it.
For each project that could have a major impact on production, we look at all the factors and criteria that’ll affect the speed of the projects. We work closely with partners to figure out what the main barrier is in each case and how to eliminate it to speed up the project.
Another important element is the investment decision, meaning how to support businesses so they can make an investment decision more quickly. These are things we look at regularly to support them. That’s part of our strategy, along with the Critical Minerals Infrastructure Fund, when we look at the projects in their entirety.
Senator Hébert: That’s a question I had about the sovereign wealth fund. Thank you.
Senator Gignac: As senators sitting on the National Finance Committee, we are rarely happy to see budget items doubled. However, in the context of global warming, it’s nice to see the funding to fight and manage forest fires go from $80 million to $150 million. I think my colleague Senator Galvez, our leader on these issues, will agree. Can you give us more details? Are these transfers to provinces? Is it to acquire fleets of water bombers?
Mr. Brisson: This is new money for different things and different functions, including water bombers. I’ll let Mr. Hargrove to explain all this in more detail.
Mr. Hargrove: Thank you for the question.
[English]
The biggest increase is driven by funding for the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre, or CIFFC, to lease and manage firefighting aircraft that will be used to augment provincial and territorial resources during peak demand so that we have extra resources that can be deployed where the need is the greatest. That’s the main increase in the amount in the estimates.
Senator Gignac: Is it fair to say that it will be on a recurrent basis in the coming years? Because I think there was probably underinvestment in the past. But now things seem to be recurrent on an annual basis.
Mr. Hargrove: Yes. Overall, it’s $317 million over five years.
Senator Gignac: Thank you. But each province has their own, so is there collaboration, or is it a federal program?
Mr. Hargrove: The acronym is CIFFC. It’s an entity that is owned by the federal government and the provinces and territories. That is the entity that coordinates resource exchange between the different governments during fire season, among other things, but that is one of their key roles.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you all very much for accepting our invitation and enlightening us on issues that were of particular concern to us. That concludes our first panel.
Welcome to our guests.
From the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada, we welcome Nick Covelli, Deputy Chief Executive Officer; Stéphane Lavigne, Director General, Management Services and Chief Financial Officer; and, by video conference, Sara Bennett, Director General and Senior General Counsel, Legal Services Branch.
From the Law Commission of Canada, we have Shauna Van Praagh, President; and Tracey O’Donnell, Executive Director and Chief Financial Officer.
Welcome and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear today.
[English]
Nick Covelli, Deputy Chief Administrator, Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada: Thank you, honourable committee chair. Good evening, committee members.
I would like to start by acknowledging that we are gathering on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe People, who have lived on this land since time immemorial.
As mentioned, my name is Nick Covelli, and I am the Deputy Chief Administrator of the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada, or ATSSC. I’m pleased to appear before you to take part in your study of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027.
[Translation]
I am joined today by my colleagues Stéphane Lavigne, Director General, Corporate Services, and Chief Financial Officer; Sara Bennett, Director General of Legal Services and Senior General Counsel; and Vicki Lalonde, Acting Deputy Chief Financial Officer.
I’d like to begin by briefly describing our role and mandate. The ATSSC was created on November 1, 2014, with the coming into force of the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act.
The ATSSC’s mission is to provide 15 administrative tribunals, boards and councils with the facilities and support they need to deliver fair, impartial and efficient justice to Canadians.
[English]
As highlighted in our 2026-27 Departmental Plan, the ATSSC identified the following key priorities for this fiscal year: implement a new organizational structure to align with government priorities and strengthen service delivery; modernize digital solutions and explore artificial intelligence opportunities to improve efficiency, user experience and access to justice; adapt support services to evolving mandates and caseloads; promote accessibility and inclusivity across programs and services; and enhance engagement with tribunals to ensure services respond to their unique needs.
In 2026-27, the ATSSC will advance several initiatives that reflect these priorities. We will continue to optimize our organizational structure by progressively integrating business units with similar functions; modernize digital solutions and enhance data analytics to improve efficiency, planning and user experience; explore innovative technologies, such as AI and improved e-filing platforms, to strengthen access to justice and streamline processes; and maintain strong cybersecurity measures to ensure the secure delivery of digital services and protect the integrity of our systems.
[Translation]
Beyond modernization, we will prepare to potentially support other organizations, optimize workspaces through long-term accommodation strategies and strengthen security frameworks.
Together, these efforts will ensure our organization remains agile, inclusive and well equipped to meet evolving needs.
Without the funding provided through the 2026-2027 Main Estimates, our work would not be possible. The ATSSC has been granted $79.4 million in voted and statutory authorities through this fiscal year’s Main Estimates.
[English]
The 2026-27 total spending authorities in the Main Estimates decreased by a net amount of $3.1 million when compared to 2025-26 Main Estimates, mainly due to the implementation of the Comprehensive Expenditure Review announced in Budget 2025. However, as announced in the Spring Economic Update 2026, we will receive an additional $4 million over two fiscal years to support two safeguard inquiries referred by the Governor-in-Council to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and $25 million over five fiscal years to support other operations.
To conclude, the 2026-27 Main Estimates will allow the ATSSC to continue to provide stable, efficient and accountable support to the organizations we serve.
[Translation]
Once again, thank you for inviting us.
[English]
My colleagues and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Covelli.
Shauna Van Praagh, President, Law Commission of Canada: Thank you and good evening, honourable senators. I am a law professor at McGill University, but I have been on leave for five years to serve in a public service role as president of the Law Commission of Canada, or LCC. I am pleased to be here this evening with my colleague Tracey O’Donnell, Executive Director and Chief Financial Officer, and Brian Peebles, Director of Outreach and Engagement.
Living the law, providing access to justice, renewing hope: that is our raison d’être expressed through three complementary commitments that define the scope of the Law Commission of Canada’s work. As you may know, the commission resumed its operations in June 2023 after a 17-year break. I often say it was a period of hibernation.
Established in 1997 under the Law Commission of Canada Act, the LCC is an independent agency with a formal mandate to consider the changing needs of Canadian society through the study, review and innovative development of Canadian law and legal systems.
In simpler terms, the LCC is an agency dedicated to engaging Canadians in the ongoing and dynamic evolution of the law. We are literally experiencing a renaissance in our country.
[English]
When Parliament voted to re-establish funding for the Law Commission of Canada in Budget 2021, it allocated $18 million over five years through 2027-28, with $4 million per year ongoing thereafter.
To provide a little bit of context, I note that the Law Reform Commission of Canada — which you may recall, depending on your age and experience in watching these things — was in existence from 1971 to 1992 and operated with an annual budget roughly five times our amount of $4 million per year, as measured in 2026 dollars. That commission was replaced by the Law Commission of Canada — the word “Reform” came out of the title — which was in operation between 1997 and 2006 and did its work with an annual budget roughly double ours.
The Law Commission of Canada is currently seeking $3.4 million in total authorities through the 2026-27 Main Estimates. This incorporates a reduction of $0.5 million from last year’s Main Estimates, primarily as a result of the government’s Comprehensive Expenditure Review.
Given our small size and modest resources, we have aimed from the start to be strategic, industrious and creative in, first, working to fulfill the promise and potential of the commission and, second, ensuring the agency’s vitality and sustainability into the future for our country.
As we prepare to celebrate the commission’s third birthday next month, we have done exactly that. We have worked with intention, diligence and care to put in place sound and responsible foundations, building a small and versatile team and reinforcing connections with and networks amongst scholars, researchers, policy-makers, community organizations and other law and justice actors, in particular those associated with courts, public legal education and the regulation of the legal profession in Canada. We have implemented four intersecting yet distinctive vocations for our projects and programs that are captured by the following four words: dream, repair, build and share.
[Translation]
Imagining, fixing, building and sharing; I like that there is a bit of poetry in the commission’s work.
[English]
We have launched a series of substantive and cost-effective initiatives, all with a signature integration of research, outreach and engagement elements.
Given our limited time together this evening, I’m just going to highlight — with your indulgence and patience — a very small selection of our accomplishments since the summer of 2023.
We have made a conscious effort to listen and learn across this country by visiting, so far, every province and two territories, as well as 21 of the country’s 25 law schools. We have found a permanent home office in the nation’s capital for the commission, moving from our temporary initial location on time and under budget.
We have designed and announced a rule-of-law commitment responsive to this moment in Canada and the world, which includes a series of public lectures hosted in 2026 by Canadian law faculties and a collection of short essays written by Canada’s law professors that is meant for a general readership — to be published this year.
We have established a conference support program, through which we provide modest financial support to organizers of conferences, workshops, seminars and other gatherings generally understood to be working in the pursuit of justice in Canada. To date, we have supported more than 60 of these initiatives, including 35 in the fiscal year that has just concluded.
We have launched an innovative journalism fellowship in partnership with the Canadian Bar Association to support in-depth original reporting on law and justice issues for the public, and we have created a podcast named “Obiter,” which now has a growing library of eight episodes, also aimed at sharing law- and justice-related stories and issues in an accessible and engaging way for non-expert audiences.
Finally, we have embarked on research projects on under-examined and overlooked issues, including charity and Canadian law and prison law in Canada, as well as an emerging series of stand-alone expert reports exploring issues on the horizon for next generations. Publication and dissemination of papers and reports that we have commissioned so far will begin later this year. We expect those reports and papers to start coming out online and, eventually, in collected volumes over this coming fiscal year, in both English and French, of course.
At the Law Commission of Canada, I hope — even in a few minutes — I have persuaded you that we are small, agile, accountable, full of energy and optimism and proud of the many pieces put in place in only three years. We look forward to working with ambition, combined with a profound sense of responsibility, as we continue to serve and engage the people of Canada.
[Translation]
Thank you for your interest and attention. Of course, we’ll be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. Van Praagh. We will now begin the question period. I’d like to remind my colleagues that we each have four minutes for questions and answers. Please be concise.
[English]
Senator Ross: My question is for you, Ms. Van Praagh, for the Law Commission of Canada. You have a very modest budget, and it seems like you have been accomplishing a lot.
I note that you are mentioning in your Departmental Plan that you expect your full-time equivalents to increase from 13 to 18, but your budget is decreasing by 13.2%. Can you tell me how you’re going to manage that adjustment?
Ms. Van Praagh: Yes, I may actually call on Tracey O’Donnell next to me to explain a little bit about the financial implications of that, but the 18 is the number that we designed in our original organizational chart. We’ve been ramping up. Obviously, we’re about to turn 3. We haven’t yet hit where we would like to be, given our ambitions and all of the projects that we’ve taken on.
In submitting our documents for the Comprehensive Expenditure Review, we actually aimed to adjust the scope of our ambitions for all of our projects rather than start to cut back on the size of the team that we think the Law Commission of Canada will, indeed, need to have moving forward.
We have been managing, but we also see that as the reports and papers come out, we are learning how much more support we need in order to ensure that we can sustain that and engage with people as the reports and papers are published.
I don’t know, Tracey, if you want to add anything.
Tracey O’Donnell, Executive Director and Chief Financial Officer, Law Commission of Canada: I don’t know that I have much more to add other than to say, yes, 18 would be the sustainable number of the human resource complement that we would need.
In terms of our Comprehensive Expenditure Review reductions, we made a conscious choice not to scale back on our staffing and instead reduce the scope of our programs, because each member of our very small team wears multiple hats for our organization, and we just could not survive without those full-time equivalents.
Senator Ross: I would draw a comparison between your description as an independent, non-partisan agency and our work here at the Senate, where we are independent and non-partisan as well.
Can you give me a sense of whom you most collaborate with in the work that you do? With a complement of somewhere between 13 and 18 people and the volume of work you’re doing, there has to be some collaboration happening.
Ms. Van Praagh: The first thing that I had the even smaller starting team do was look carefully at how the Law Commission had operated from 1997 to 2006, and we issued a paper that is available on our website called Recall to Reimagine, so learning from our own nine-year history under the Law Commission of Canada Act, which is very different than the legislation that had framed the Law Reform Commission.
We learned from that and then reimagined this commission and, in particular, the mechanisms for which we would produce what people usually associate with a law commission, which are research-informed reports, analyses and critical work that supports what I think of as ongoing conversations among the actors who might actually have the power to make changes. The Law Commission has no such power, obviously.
We decided early on, drawing from that past experience, learning from how that commission in those nine years had done things, to institute a cost-effective measure of commissioning expert work from the people who are the experts, so mostly scholars and people I like to refer to as scholarly practitioners in the field. We provide a very modest honorarium of $10,000 for a 10,000-word paper or report. People are not paid by the hour or by the page or by the word.
That’s why I’ve been on the road, trying to get the Law Commission back on the horizon of the scholars across this country who actually — many of them are my colleagues — if you push them a little, they realize that working for a university is also working for the public service. We have excellent publicly funded post-secondary education, and the experts in law and the evolution of law and all of these areas of law are there. So we are trying to persuade them to take up this opportunity to write something for the commission.
We’re quite proud to say that, on the charity and law projects — the first major collaborative project — we have 19 commissioned papers that are coming in. That will mean 200,000 words of text for a cost that is limited.
That’s how we’re doing things. I mean, I could go into more detail. You don’t want to hear the detail and you want me to be brief, but that gives you an idea of how, with the resources, not only have we had to be agile and creative, but, in fact, it’s a wonderful opportunity to be creative and responsive in that way.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: Mr. Covelli, earlier you listed your priorities, which are also identified in the departmental plan. You talked about setting up a new organizational structure to align with government priorities and strengthen service delivery. What specific government priorities are you referring to?
[English]
Mr. Covelli: One of the government’s major priorities is helping to strengthen the Canadian economy. Some of the tribunals that we support have an economic-related mandate, for example, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and the Canada Industrial Relations Board, among others.
With the resources that we have, we are trying to ensure that we allocate them in a way that bears those priorities of the government in mind, but there are other factors, of course, that we also use. We look at which tribunals are busiest because their workloads may fluctuate. A lot of them are very busy right now, including the two that I mentioned. This is, perhaps, not a surprise because of what’s happening in the world and in the country.
We have made efforts to ensure that the resources that those particular tribunals and others need, we’ve done our best to provide them.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: You also said you were going to welcome more organizations or, at least, that you were going to oversee more tribunals and commissions. Did you say which ones? I apologize if I didn’t pay enough attention.
[English]
Mr. Covelli: I did not list them. There is nothing concrete right now, but we are open for business, if I can use that expression. We have grown.
The budget implementation bill included a provision that would allow the Minister of Justice to include some territorial tribunals in the schedule of our act. In fact, we’ve been supporting a couple of Yukon boards for a number of years through a memorandum of understanding. This legislation could potentially formalize that.
The legislation also officially added support from our organization for the Environmental Protection Tribunal of Canada. There may be other tribunals down the road. I don’t have a list for you, I’m afraid, senator.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: Ms. Van Praagh, does your commission deal strictly with administrative law or the law as a whole? If it is the law as a whole, are specialized tribunals, as we’ve seen in Quebec, for example, with tribunals dealing with violence and sexual assault against women, something to consider? Are these study topics on your radar?
Ms. Van Praagh: Thank you for the question. One of the LCC’s challenges is that its mandate is very broad and a bit vague. It’s a challenge, but also an opportunity. It’s an invitation to connect. We work with the Institut québécois de réforme du droit et de la justice, chaired by Pierre Noreau at the Université de Montréal. In a way, the institute is a law reform agency in Quebec. Mr. Noreau works with the courts and stakeholders, and collaborates on various projects. We try to facilitate connections, collaboration opportunities and learning where we can. As an example, we open the door to events that relate to the issues of the day. This has led us to launch a support program for workshops and conferences that focus exactly on this topic. We can be involved, but there is a whole network of possibilities and questions.
Obviously, we’re not the main actor in everything related to law reform.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Galvez: I must confess that I don’t know your organization, but I did read your mission. So I was wondering if, in order to know you better — something that worries me about my work as a senator and in the Parliament is whether you believe that Parliament or your organization has adequate mechanisms to evaluate whether the laws that come out of our Parliament improve the well-being and quality of life of Canadians after we have adopted them.
Mr. Covelli: Thank you for your question, senator, first of all. It’s a difficult question for me to answer, frankly. We work with the legislation that you give us as parliamentarians, and we support the tribunal members that have to interpret that legislation and apply it in the cases that they adjudicate. I can’t really comment on the merits of the legislation if that’s what you’re asking.
Senator Galvez: You support the tribunals with issues with human rights, labour relations, immigration, refugee competition, public servants, transport, so directly or indirectly, are you interested in telling us whether we do a good job or a bad job?
Mr. Covelli: So providing feedback on whether the legislative mechanisms are effective at safeguarding human rights and international trade — is that what you mean?
To an extent, there is feedback that we provide to the portfolio departments. Each of the tribunals we support has a portfolio department, and the tribunal chairperson, as well, will have conversations from time to time and will provide feedback to their portfolio ministers or portfolio departments. That is a mechanism where there can be a loop back to the Senate or the House of Commons. So if there are opportunities to improve legislation, that is one way that feedback is received by you — indirectly, I suppose.
Senator Galvez: I think it would be important that we have a more direct relationship with your organization.
Ms. Van Praagh, as you said, law is alive, and law needs to evolve. We have to modernize. I’m worried about how democracy is going backwards in these times. I was wondering about the subjects of your studies. Do you think that legislation is adapting quickly enough to these emerging challenges of artificial intelligence, climate change, misinformation or growing social inequalities, which are causing affordability issues?
Ms. Van Praagh: The relationship between written or formal law and society is always a complex one; which one follows which, which one informs the other. As society changes, of course, legislation also has to change and adapt, but law doesn’t always come in the form of legislation. I think that explains or is connected to some extent with a renewed and important interest and curiosity in what we mean by the rule of law and the mechanisms, or the how, in which we think of law and justice. Here, I’m piggybacking a little bit on my neighbour’s response. How do we pay attention to these mechanisms that provide the feedback so that we are all — whatever our role is in law and justice — doing the best job possible?
One of the things I have found quite incredible and that has been a real eye-opener to me as a law professor taking on this job is having the opportunity to talk to people in community organizations who are doing a lot of the front-line work that I think of as — and really does function as — ongoing law making. It’s not formal law making in the way we think of legislation, but it is law making for the people who are affected in those jurisdictions, systems and communities that are affected.
You rightly articulate an ongoing question that can never be simply answered, about which comes first and whether we can keep up, but if we lose sight of how important the question is, that’s where the problem is. That’s why having a law commission and an independent agency trying to support efforts to communicate to Canadians how law operates in their lives so they don’t feel it’s something all top-down and remote from them and that they can’t play an important role in participating — that’s the kind of message that we’re trying to get out there and also support in terms of other law and justice actors.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Welcome, witnesses. My question is for the Law Commission president.
I looked at your road map and I was very impressed. I want to thank you for your involvement in the public service and for being at the Law Commission of Canada.
I won’t ask for your reaction to Mr. Carney’s decision to also appoint a great Montrealer as Governor General, but, as senators, we’re very proud to have someone like Ms. Arbour in a rule of law country like Canada. Congratulations.
I’m an economist, so law isn’t really my thing, but I read the following on your website:
Non-partisan in nature and distinct from advocacy groups, the LCC offers leadership and guidance on the responsible and responsive evolution of law in the lives of people across Canada.
We had officials from the Department of Justice appear before the committee. What I find a bit troubling is the law seems to be doing quite well in Canada compared to other countries. I wonder if it’s one of the things you intend to look at. How do you explain that, according to statistics, only 51% of Canadians trust the criminal justice system, while the department’s targets are 70%?
Is this an issue you intend to delve into? It may not be . . . . Since you’re in contact with others, is there a distinction between Quebec and the other provinces? Do you see any distinctions in that regard? This may not be your area of expertise, but who will exercise leadership to see what can be done to ensure Canadians trust the justice system?
Ms. Van Praagh: I think it’s a shared responsibility. That’s very important. When I started, I thought it was essential to take the time to see who was doing what to avoid duplicating the work. Given the commission didn’t exist for 17 years means, in a sense, it wasn’t necessary. The law and the administration of justice continued to evolve in every part of the country without the commission. It’s hubris.
I don’t know who runs the study on confidence levels and whether it’s different in Quebec or compared to Ontario, for example.
I’d say there’s probably a difference between urban and rural areas. We’re working to support initiatives related to the revitalization of Indigenous legal orders. A lot of efforts are being expended and ambitious initiatives being developed to build trust in the law and justice.
We chose charity and law, or charities, partly because that’s where a lot of the work is being done to build Canadians’ trust. Politicians and people who work in communities have told us charities are very important for law and justice, so we’ve asked for reports and studies on these issues. We also looked at prison law to participate in the conversation about the conditions of those deprived of their freedoms in this country.
Those are just two examples. There are a range of possibilities.
As the commission’s first president, I’m trying to set the foundation for its sustainability, so it can get involved in the other streams and the other research activities to meet the needs of the future.
Senator Gignac: There seems to be more trust in the Canadian system. There’s a distinction between the legislative, executive and judicial branches. In the U.S., it’s much more politicized. I’m curious about that, and I’d like to know why Canadians don’t have more trust in our justice system. I think we have much more favourable conditions than in the U.S., where politics play a role in the appointment of judges. It’s completely different.
Ms. Van Praagh: There are sociological studies looking at exactly that question.
We’re trying to understand the links between opinions, the public’s understanding and reality. That’s important. That’s why our commitment to the rule of law takes many forms, including a collection of small discussion papers for readers and members of the public who are curious to know more. We’ll try to share that collection this year.
Senator Gignac: You will have the support of the country’s highest head of state in your work. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: I have a question for Ms. Bennett. I want to follow up on Senator Galvez’s questions about feedback. We got a good answer from Mr. Covelli, but, as Director General of Legal Services, do you think it would be relevant to have better feedback on the quality and relevance of bills that are passed? What are your thoughts on that?
Ms. Bennett: Thank you for the question. There’s feedback at a couple of levels. Obviously, I agree with Mr. Covelli that it’s not really our role to propose legislative amendments. The courts are there to interpret and enforce the laws that are passed. However, there are two levels where there’s an opportunity for feedback.
The first is the chair of each tribunal. The ATSSC serves a dozen independent tribunals, each one managed by a chair. Each chair has a tribunal client advisory committee — at least most of them do. That’s true for the Canada Industrial Relations Board, the Human Rights Tribunal and the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Board. Clients can make suggestions and share their challenges, especially with respect to procedures, through these advisory committees.
This means tribunals control their own rules of procedure and draw on the suggestions to adapt them in order to facilitate access to justice.
The second level, as Mr. Covelli indicated, is the regular discussions we have with representatives of each department when they have legislative proposals to make, where we can inform them of certain enforcement challenges.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you to the witnesses for joining us this evening. I think we’ve done a very good job of discovering organizations we knew very little about, and we now know more about the role you play, which is very informative.
I also want to thank our clerk, Sara, and our two analysts, André and Michaël, who make it possible for us to do our work well.
(The committee adjourned.)