Evidence of meeting #39 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
Special Advisor to the Deputy Minister, Department of Justice
Well, if he were to do that, he would not therefore be carrying out his role. His role is to provide the services that are required by those tribunals. So if this person is not providing the services that are required, then this person would not be accomplishing his work.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
So if that person chose not to provide as much revenue to that tribunal to do that service, that individual--who is responsible for the care and feeding of the tribunals--could simply starve it.
Special Advisor to the Deputy Minister, Department of Justice
Well, each tribunal is coming with a certain level of resources. Of course, resources are not unlimited, so each tribunal would have to be served within what is reasonable and given the type of mandates they have, just as they are now. There will be eventually some efficiency, but initially there is no budget target reductions, so each tribunal comes with the resources it currently has.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
But if a Governor in Council appointment, as chief administrator, of a person at the pleasure of the government of the day chose to have that tribunal, which might not be in favour, given little or no income, there would be nothing under this statute that could stop that. It's a discretionary call by an individual who is appointed at the pleasure of the government.
That's my point. That's the reason, Chair, for the amendment. There's no reason to continue.
Special Advisor to the Deputy Minister, Department of Justice
I could give you the example of the Courts Administration Service. The chief administrator of that organization also serves “at pleasure”. Persons whose job is to manage organizations typically serve “at pleasure”.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
But the courts are very different from the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal, to take an example—but that's simply my position.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
I think I'll wait for Liberal-26 to make my comments.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
All in favour of clause 376, please signify.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
You want a recorded vote on clause 376.
(Clause 376 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)
(On clause 377—Definitions)
We now have Liberal-26.
I have Mr. Saxton on my list, but first I'll go to Mr. McKay to move.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I'll try to keep Mr. Keddy happy by waxing ineloquent. I see we have about 10 minutes left, so I guess I have to run with those 10 minutes, do I?
We heard from the Canadian Steel Producers, who are very concerned about the changes in the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. They wrote the following to the committee about the proposed change: [It] introduces clear risks to the functioning of the trade remedy system, with direct impacts on the domestic industry, importers, and the government itself. Substantive impacts are likely to weaken the trade remedy system, not strengthen it. This is of direct concern to Canadian Steel Producers.
They also said, “we note that there was no prior consultation”—where have we heard that before?—“on the ATSSA proposal with domestic industries most likely to be affected, nor with trade legal advisors.” And they ask CITT be removed from the section in Bill C-31.
We also heard from the Canadian Bar Association, who apparently have a few opinions about these things, including:
...that the ATSSCA not be passed into law. If the ATSSCA is to become law, we recommend that at a minimum excluding the CITT, the CIRB and the PSDPT from its reach.
So as I say, Mr. Chairman, we seem to be hearing this as a refrain, this is the kind of legislation which should be dealt with separately, it should not be part of an omnibus bill, there was no consultation, and both the trade associations and the lawyers are upset. It's quite a testimony to how to run a government.
Conservative
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Thanks, Chair.
I just want to point out, with regards to the proposed Liberal amendments, that the ATSSC will improve the services received by the tribunals it supports, including the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the Canada Industrial Relations Board, and the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal, and will generate efficiencies. This will lead to an improved access to justice for Canadians.
The ATSSC will operate at arm's length from the Minister of Justice, the decision-making independence of the tribunals is protected as indicated in the legislation. And tribunals will continue to have access to all the expertise they require, and there will be no reduction in the protection given any confidential information they receive.
Thank you.
Conservative
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
[Inaudible—Editor]...with the decision is the explanatory note. It does try to remove the three bodies from this division, from this vote, in part because of a fierce independence and a fear that the independence will actually be eroded. Anyway, it is what it is, and we know where this one's going.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. McKay.
The legislative clerk has reminded me that the decision the committee takes on Liberal-26 applies to Liberal-27, Liberal-28, Liberal-29, Liberal-30, Liberal-31, Liberal-32, and Liberal-33, as all these amendments are consequential. In other words, if this amendment is defeated, there are no more amendments for clauses 378 to 482.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We will have a recorded vote on Liberal-26.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
We shall go to clause 377.
Mr. Rankin.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I have a question for the officials, as I simply don't know whether there's an issue here.
Clause 377 lists, under the definition of administrative tribunal, 11 tribunals. Schedule 6 lists 10 tribunals. I just wondered if you could comment on why there's a difference?
Ann Chaplin Senior General Counsel, Department of Justice
The 11th tribunal will be the public service employment and labour relations board, and that body is one that was created two years ago in legislation that is not yet in effect. So clause 481—I believe—is a coordinating amendment that will add the public service employment and labour relations board to the schedule of the ATSSC act when that statue comes into effect.
