Finance Committee on May 29th, 2014

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

It's a well-known proposition, Mr. Chairman, that the opposition wants to talk about the process and they've taken at least an hour out of the discussion this evening on the process and have waxed eloquently on it, instead of dealing with consecutive amendments or the issues.

Quite frankly, since everyone is taking their time to talk I'm going to take mine. I've been around this place as long as anyone else at the table and generally, Mr. Chairman, not in every case, but generally, if someone doesn't have any real substance to their article, to their amendments or to their statements, then they criticize the process.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I'll just remind colleagues that we're getting near the end, and I would like to finish this before 11 if we could. I think I have Mr. Cullen first and then I have Mr. Rankin.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes, so very specifically, if these things matter then they would deem to have proper debate and scrutiny. This matters in the sense that I have a specific question, not on process, but on substance with respect to the tribunals that settle international trade tribunals. There have been legitimate concerns raised from those who deal with the trade tribunal, the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters. Did the government consult with this group before considering this amalgamation of all these tribunals into one administrative body?

[France Pégeot, Special Advisor to the Deputy Minister, Department of Justice]

Good evening.

This measure is actually to put together the various resources of all the tribunals, and it's essentially an administrative measure, so the powers of the various tribunals with respect adjudication and other substantive functions are not changed by this legislation. The chairs and the members of the tribunals continue to have control over their rules and their procedures. They continue to have all the adjudicative and other statutory powers that their legislation provides them.

The tribunals themselves remain autonomous. They remain under their respective ministerial portfolio and they remain an entity. It's the services and the resources. The resources are being transferred to this new organization, and the services will be provided to them. But this organization is an administrative body; it doesn't have adjudicative power.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes, I understand.

So again my question was, did the government consult with a group like the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters before this move was made?

That was my question.

[France Pégeot]

No.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you.

The second part of that is, you said it's merely an administrative move, but is not the chief administrator the one who then holds the purse strings, so to speak? Are they not the ones making decisions as to resources and allocation of those resources across the tribunals?

[France Pégeot]

That's right.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Is that not a concern with respect to independence of those tribunals? If money is a factor in what the tribunals are able to investigate and what they're not, I deem money would be a factor in all of the tribunals. The chief administrator would hold a certain amount of influence over each of those tribunals and what they're able to spend in a given year.

[France Pégeot]

Each tribunal is coming with its share of resources, and we're actually identifying that share of resources as we are preparing for the merger. There will be some natural, I would say, integration in the area of corporate services, for example, finance, administration, and in IM/IT. This leads to more integration and sharing, but at the same time there are some resources and some staff that have the expertise required for the tribunals. For example, for the CITT, you have lawyers and you have economists. These will not be able to serve other tribunals that require art historians, for example.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

My question was, does the chief administrator control the budgets of the various tribunals?

[France Pégeot]

It controls the budget of the ATSSC, which provides the services to the tribunals.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

So it directly controls the budget of the tribunals.

[France Pégeot]

Tribunals per se will not have a budget. The budget will be in the ATSSC.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

You're adding a layer of bureaucracy there. But in terms of the tribunals and how much resource they have available to them, that will be determined by the chief administrator.

[France Pégeot]

Yes, in consultation with the chairs.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I understand, in consultation.

The Exporters Association has raised specific concerns about their ability to trade and seek remedy through the trade tribunals and whether that tribunal will have resources sufficient to what their task is. If we're interested in trade at all, you'd think that would have been a warning sign to the government that one of the main trading agents and lobby groups within this country has raised concerns.

The fact that they weren't consulted, the fact that the chief administrator, appointed and beholden to the ministers themselves, is controlling the purse strings on something so important, make it seem that even the notion of independence or arm's length is somewhat questionable. But I'll leave it at that. It seems to be a thrown-together process.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

I have Mr. Rankin and then Mr. Saxton.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Chair, just as a point of order, are we talking about my amendment or the merits or the specifics of this section?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We're on NDP-23.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

All right. So the point of the amendment was to change the appointment of the chief administrator to appointment during good behaviour as opposed to the bill before us, which would have that appointment during pleasure. Our objective is to ensure that there's a greater independence on that individual who, if appointed during pleasure, could be of course turfed out at any point in time when the government didn't like what he or she was doing.

Is there a distinction at law, in your judgment, between good behaviour and during pleasure?

[France Pégeot]

There is a distinction. The Administrative Tribunals Support Service's chief administrator will not have adjudicative power, as I've mentioned. Its role will be to provide the administrative services to the tribunal. So his role is a management role. The chairs and the members will continue to have adjudicative power, and typically when you look at that type of appointment, it is those quasi-judicial appointments that are made on good behaviour. For example, the chairs and the members appointments are all for good behaviours.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

But with respect, we're not talking about those tribunals. We understand that they're independent—of course that's the case—but we're talking about the chief administrator, and there's a difference, is there not, between good behaviour and during pleasure for that individual?

[France Pégeot]

Yes, there is a difference.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

So in answer to my colleague, Mr. Cullen, and the point he was making about the management of the purse strings—and I'm going to ask this later—there's either 10 or 11 tribunals that we're dealing with here. It's unclear. If that individual, for example, wanted to provide little or no budget to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal that deals with whistleblowers, and didn't like that particular tribunal for positions it took, all it would need to do is starve that tribunal of a budget. Is that not correct?