Evidence of meeting #62 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was work.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Karen Swol  Director, Program Management, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
Dean Beyea  Director, International Trade Policy Division, Department of Finance
Olivier Nicoloff  Director, Democracy, Commonwealth and Francophonie Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Colleen Barnes  Executive Director, Domestic Policy Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Nancy Leigh  Manager, Governance Secretariat, Canada School of Public Service
Jane Pearse  Director, Financial Institutions Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Suzanne Brisebois  Director General, Policy and Operations, Parole Board of Canada, Public Safety Canada
Louise Laflamme  Chief, Marine Policy and Regulatory Affairs, Department of Transport
Lenore Duff  Senior Director, Strategic Policy and Legislative Reform, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Lawrence Hanson  Director General, Strategic Policy Directorate, Department of the Environment
Pamela Miller  Director General, Telecommunications Policy Branch, Department of Industry
Allan MacGillivray  Special Advisor to the Director General, Telecommunications Policy, Department of Industry
Alwyn Child  Director General, Program Development and Guidance Directorate, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Mireille Laroche  Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Mark Hodgson  Senior Policy Analyst, Labour Markets, Employment and Learning, Department of Finance
Patrick Halley  Chief, Tariffs and Market Acess, International Trade and Finance, Department of Finance
Vivian Krause  As an Individual
Mark Blumberg  Lawyer and Partner, Blumberg Segal LLP
Dan Kelly  Senior Vice-President, Legislative Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business
Dennis Howlett  Coordinator, Canadians for Tax Fairness
Jamie Ellerton  Executive Director, EthicalOil.org
Blair Rutter  Grain Growers of Canada
Marcel Lauzière  President and Chief Executive Officer, Imagine Canada
Tom King  Co-Chair, Finance and Taxation Committee, Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada
Sandra Harder  Director General, Strategic Policy and Planning, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Cam Carruthers  Director, Program Integrity Division, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada
David Manicom  Immigration Program Manager (New Delhi), Area Director (South Asia), Department of Citizenship and Immigration

4:30 p.m.

Manager, Governance Secretariat, Canada School of Public Service

Nancy Leigh

Thank you.

Excellent.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you very much for being with us here today.

We will move on to division 36, the Bank Act.

Welcome back to the finance committee. We look forward to your overview of this section and then we'll have questions.

Ms. Pearse.

4:30 p.m.

Jane Pearse Director, Financial Institutions Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Thank you very much. Thank you for having me back again.

I'm just here for one division this time, you'll be happy to know.

Division 36 introduces a preamble to the Bank Act to clarify the intent that all banking activities throughout Canada can be governed exclusively by the same high-quality federal standards. The objective of the preamble is to reaffirm Parliament's exclusive jurisdiction over banking, and the preamble will be an express statement of Parliament's purpose in this regard.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you very much.

Are there questions from members?

Monsieur Caron.

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Welcome once again.

With respect to the Bank Act, as you know, when we talk about adopting clear, complete and exclusive national standards, it affects a number of areas, in particular consumer protection. The contracts issue was and still is recognized as a matter under shared jurisdiction. The provinces and the federal government take complementary action.

In April, the Quebec Minister of Justice wrote to Mr. Flaherty, I believe. After analyzing the bill, he said he was very concerned that the federal government wanted to assume exclusive jurisdiction over an area that had been under shared federal and provincial jurisdiction until that point.

Do you think that is going to be the case and might the constitutionality of this clause create problems?

4:30 p.m.

Director, Financial Institutions Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Jane Pearse

Both orders of government in Canada have an interest in ensuring that consumers and financial institutions are not confused or burdened by overlapping or contradictory regulations and requirements. Parliament's responsibility for banking is clear under the Constitution, and the government takes that responsibility very seriously. The preamble works to reaffirm the government's commitment to its jurisdiction over banking.

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

I think we agree that the Bank Act is under federal jurisdiction. However, some aspects of that act were under shared jurisdiction until now. Given that this does not seem to be clear, I am taking into consideration that the reason an amendment is being introduced is to take back something that has been under shared jurisdiction until now.

Because it is a matter of claiming all of this and bringing it under exclusive federal jurisdiction, without consulting Quebec, I am asking you, again, whether you think the constitutionality of this clause is going to cause problems.

4:30 p.m.

Director, Financial Institutions Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Jane Pearse

Yes, under the Constitution, jurisdiction under the Bank Act for banking is exclusively federal jurisdiction. Bank customers are required, under the Bank Act's Cost of Borrowing Regulations, to receive clear disclosure and other aspects of the consumer disclosure that you're referring to.

The concern is that some consumers receive different disclosures of things like interest rates and fees under the federal and the provincial disclosure rules. It can be confusing. There is a possibility or a probability of confusion for consumers who receive these two potentially different types of disclosures, and the government's view is that confusion can weaken consumer protection. So bank customers should only receive disclosure as required under the Bank Act and thus bank customers in general will be able to achieve the same high quality—

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

That goes beyond the question I asked you, and I have very little time. My question really addresses constitutionality. You are undoubtedly walking on eggshells in this, so I am going to ask you a different question.

Up to now, we have assumed that what was done by the provincial governments, and in particular the Quebec government, and what was done by the federal government were complementary. I would therefore like to know whether the governments of Quebec and the other provinces were consulted before an amendment to the Bank Act was proposed.

4:35 p.m.

Director, Financial Institutions Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Jane Pearse

The preamble is effectively a preamble over the Bank Act, and the federal government has the clear constitutional ability to effect—

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

I understand, but that was really not what my question was about. I wanted to know whether there were consultations before the amendment was proposed.

4:35 p.m.

Director, Financial Institutions Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Jane Pearse

With Quebec?

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

With Quebec and the other provinces.

4:35 p.m.

Director, Financial Institutions Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

When the minister of justice of a province takes the time to write to the federal minister to explain his or her concerns, it probably has to do with the fact that the government in question was not consulted. In this case, it might cause some problems in terms of implementation. We might also expect there to be challenges.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Mr. Brison, do you have questions on this?

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

No, thanks.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you very much for coming back. I'm sure we'll see you soon.

We'll bring our next officials forward for division 37, Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

We have Ms. Brisebois from Public Safety Canada.

Welcome to the committee. Please give your overview of these amendments, and we'll have questions after.

4:35 p.m.

Suzanne Brisebois Director General, Policy and Operations, Parole Board of Canada, Public Safety Canada

My name is Suzanne Brisebois. I'm the director general of policy and operations at the Parole Board of Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the invitation to speak to you today. I will keep my remarks brief, as we're discussing a single amendment.

As you know, the Parole Board of Canada is an independent administrative tribunal that has exclusive authorities under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or CCRA, to make decisions on the conditional release of offenders.

The CCRA and its regulations guide the board's policies, operations, training, and parole decision-making, and provide the legislative framework for the corrections and conditional release system in Canada. Bill C-38 proposes to eliminate the requirement for in-person hearings for certain types of reviews. This change will save the board $1.6 million annually.

Specifically, clause 527 of Bill C-38 seeks to modify paragraph 140(1)(d) of the CCRA to remove the requirement for a panel hearing following the suspension, termination, or revocation of parole or statutory release. Instead, these decisions will be conducted by board members and the office by way of a paper review. Offenders will continue to be provided with all the information being considered by the board at least 15 days in advance of the review. They may make representation in writing for the board's consideration.

It is important to note that this change is specific to post-release decisions. The board will continue to conduct hearings for pre-release decisions involving day and full parole releases. Moreover, the board will retain the right to conduct an in-person hearing where it is deemed warranted.

Protection of society is of paramount concern to the Parole Board of Canada. Public safety will be protected and the rules of fundamental justice will continue to be respected.

Thank you for your time. I'm able to take questions should you have any.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll start with Ms. Nash, please.

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Thank you for being here.

There's a federal corrections facility in my riding. It's like a halfway house. There's always a lot of concern about when people get to that facility, although it has an excellent record.

What do you think the impact will be of not having a panel review? Do you think there will be any increase or decrease in the number of people who may get conditional release? Do you think there will be any impact?

I always think that when people appear in person there is an emotional connection that doesn't appear on paper, and it can be advantageous to having a thorough assessment of a person. So what do you think the impact of this change will be on the conditional release of prisoners?

4:35 p.m.

Director General, Policy and Operations, Parole Board of Canada, Public Safety Canada

Suzanne Brisebois

I'll clarify.

This release is specific to offenders who are already in the community on either parole or statutory release. So the review by the board has already been conducted in terms of, for instance, an offender being granted day or full parole. Those are decisions that the board may determine. That has already been conducted in most instances. Unless the offender waives the hearing, those decisions are conducted by way of a hearing.

So for these cases, we're really speaking of post-release decisions, where the offender has already been reviewed by the board by way of a hearing, typically, and the post-suspension decisions are for cases where an offender is in the community and may have breached their condition of release, or their risk may have changed to the point where the release is suspended. They're re-reviewed by the board. Their case comes before the board.

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

If I could just clarify, people who are already on conditional parole, who would be in the federal facility in my riding.... I understand they've already had a review to get to that facility. But are you saying that if someone breaches parole in that facility, they may not have a panel review, it might just be a paper review?

4:40 p.m.

Director General, Policy and Operations, Parole Board of Canada, Public Safety Canada

Suzanne Brisebois

That's right, and that currently occurs. Right now the law requires a hearing for post-suspension, termination, or revocation decisions, but in approximately half the cases offenders will waive their right to a hearing, and it is conducted by administrative review in-office. So this would remove the requirement in legislation for the board to conduct a hearing for those cases, but the board still retains the right to conduct a hearing where it deems that it's warranted, perhaps for more complex cases or where they deem that it's warranted to have an in-person hearing with the offender.

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Just in short, in your view of the impact of this change, what kind of outcome will it create?