Finance Committee on May 28th, 2012

[Karen Swol]

If we decided over time through a regulation that we wanted to specify maybe a higher portion than 12.5%, or a different percentage than is currently there, that would allow it. Different kinds of work may warrant higher percentages in different circumstances. With different classes of railways—maybe the class I's, the larger railways, versus the smaller short lines—the regulation would be able to write up some exemptions to that.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

On limiting the agency's discretion in apportioning costs to a road authority to a maximum of 12.5% of the overall cost, where was that figure derived from?

[Karen Swol]

When we were providing 80% federal funding, the road authorities and the railways traditionally split the remaining 20%. The traditional split was 12.5% for the road authorities and 7.5% for the railways, so we kept the traditional proportion for the road authorities.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Why doesn't the Minister of Transport convene a meeting with the railway companies, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and provincial governments to come up with overall standards on some of these issues or protocols around safety standards and location issues that could be interpreted and applied more consistently?

[Karen Swol]

Are you talking about a costing standard?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

For example, you could say we don't want a school on one side of the track and a fast food restaurant on the other side. But recognizing that the federal government's cutting back its spending on this, are there ways, perhaps through convening a meeting with the Canadian Federation of Municipalities—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have one minute.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

—provincial governments, and the companies, to create standards on some of this, and to deepen that? Would that be a meritorious idea?

[Karen Swol]

I guess I should mention, too, that there is also some work going on to develop grade crossing regulations. We are in the process of doing external consultations on that, which will put a level of standard at a crossing.

That wouldn't address the financial component, but it would address the safety standard.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Okay, but the point is that during a time when the federal government is reducing its expenditures on this, there may be a way to standardize it to—

[Karen Swol]

Yes. Fair enough.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

—continue prudent approaches.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Is there anyone else on this division?

I want to thank you very much for being with us here today, presenting to us, and responding to our questions.

We'll now ask officials from Finance to discuss division 32, with respect to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

Welcome to the committee. Please give us an overview of this division.

[Dean Beyea, Director, International Trade Policy Division, Department of Finance]

Thanks, Chair.

First, my name is Dean Beyea. I'm the director of the international trade policy division at the Department of Finance.

Division 32 amends the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act.

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal is a quasi-judicial institution within Canada's trade remedy system. The CITT conducts inquiries into complaints relating to unfair trading practices, that is, dumping and subsidizing. The CITT reports to Parliament through the Minister of Finance. The Tribunal is currently composed of a chair, two vice-chairs, and up to four regular members, who are appointed by the Governor in Council.

Clauses 487 and 489 amend the CITT Act to replace the two vice-chair positions with regular permanent member positions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you for that explanation.

Mr. Caron, you have the floor.

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

What is the rationale for this change? What will the role of the permanent members be? How will it differ from a vice-chair's role?

What would happen if the chair of a tribunal had to step down for one reason or another?

[Dean Beyea]

The only difference between the role of the vice-chair and that of a regular member is that a vice-chair can undertake the duties of the chair. The amendment would be that now the regular members can decide amongst themselves who would replace the chair in that situation. There are currently no other duties that the vice-chairs perform.

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

What is the budgetary impact of this measure?

[Dean Beyea]

It's a saving. It's part of the deficit reduction action plan. It's a saving of just under $100,000, which represents about 1% of CITT's budget. It's a very small organization.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Is there anyone else? No?

Thank you very much for your presentation and for being with us here today.

We'll now move on to division 33, on the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development Act.

We have an official from DFAIT with us.

Welcome to the committee. Perhaps you could give us a brief overview, and then we'll have questions.

[Olivier Nicoloff, Director, Democracy, Commonwealth and Francophonie Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Mr. Chair, my name is Olivier Nicoloff. I am the Director, Democracy, Commonwealth and Francophonie Division at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

On April 3, the Government of Canada announced its intention to close Rights and Democracy as part of its efforts to save money and be more effective. Because of the challenges that organization had experienced in the past, it was decided that it was now time to look to the future.

On April 5, the government announced the appointment of an interim board of directors whose mandate would essentially be to wind up the organization. Under the direction of the interim board, Rights and Democracy is now working on the effective winding down of its foreign programs while minimizing the impact of that work.

The Government of Canada remains committed to promoting freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law around the world every day. From Canada's ambassador and embassy personnel around the world to the staff at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Canadian International Development Agency in Ottawa, Government of Canada officials continue to work to support democracy and human rights internationally. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade funds democracy support projects around the world, mainly through the $3 million democracy envelope of the Glyn Berry program. DFAIT's democracy support is complemented by a much larger envelope for long-term good governance, human rights, and support for the rule of law managed by the Canadian International Development Agency, which totalled about $204 million in 2010-11.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll begin members' questions with Mr. Marston, please.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And welcome. I appreciate your being here.

In the subcommittee on human rights, we often have dealt with the history of a variety of countries—the Arab Spring type of situation, or Iran in particular, following their last election and the things that happened there. Some of the witnesses talked about organizations like Rights and Democracy, where they had visible space between them and the government. They could do things on the ground that couldn't be done by the government. What would your reaction be to that opinion?

[Olivier Nicoloff]

Thank you for the question.

I would say we are dealing today with a situation, with a world that is quite different from the one we knew in 1988 when Rights and Democracy was established. You're talking about the role that NGOs can play abroad. In fact, NGOs are much more active and much more present than they used to be. But the capacity of the government to act abroad is also quite different, I think, from what it was in 1988. I'm thinking, for example, about the Internet, and the capacity to communicate more directly with different groups and organizations in different circumstances. So I think one of the quick questions the government has to answer is whether the tools we had in the past to do that type of work are the tools we still need today.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I would offer you too, sir, that what we saw in the Arab Spring had a lot to do with technology, young people together, but it was NGO-type groups working with them via the Internet and other methods that offered them the kind of support that's essential.

There's a huge distrust level around the world between certain governments, without naming too many of them—the situation we saw happening in Egypt, where they removed the head of state, but the regime fundamentally is still in place there. So there's more access to that country than say Iran, so organizations like Rights and Democracy working through there, would have an opportunity to do a lot of good.

I'm really concerned about taking it within the walls of government, at least in the perception of people. I'm not critical of the work at DFAIT. I think the work they do is fine. It's not from that point of view, it's from that arm's length feeling of trust that's needed.