Evidence of meeting #58 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was authority.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
You talked a little bit about the Bank of Canada having its role expanded somewhat. How do you see the transition to that? Is that something that will require more tools to respond to that risk and is it geared up to do that?
9:45 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Payments Association
This change is really a sort of global standards change, which is part of a broader set of changes to the global financial system. The change for the Bank of Canada will give it additional powers to designate payment systems beyond what it has today.
For us, that will likely mean that it will designate the retail infrastructure and systems that we run. I believe it is fully ready to do that. My only concern, in that regard, is that we don't have duplicate oversight between the Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada because that can impede our ability to be reactive to the needs of users.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
I'm glad you brought that up because that was going to be my next question. In terms of the duplication, are there provisions for that or would that be handled in terms of the regulatory structure that would support this legislation, and that you would make sure there's no duplication?
9:45 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Payments Association
The challenge for us is to design workable arrangements for that. The avenue that we have is through memorandums of understanding with both the Bank of Canada and the Department of Finance, and then how it plays out operationally month to month. As it exists in the proposed legislation, both the Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada have a particular oversight role, so we have to make it work within that context and we'll have to make it efficient.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Thank you.
Ms. Zatylny, I have a question with respect to some of the changes. You commented in your presentation about using provincial and municipal regulations and the potential...the minister's ability to set in regulation the ability to delegate enforcement of these types of things.
Has there been any discussion with your group and the government on the supporting regulations to this and what the next steps will be to ensure there's no duplication in the overlap of this enforcement, but at the same time making sure there are no gaps?
9:45 a.m.
President, Association of Canadian Port Authorities
Thank you for the question, sir.
In fact, the intention of that particular amendment is to close the gap. In the current division of power, shipping is a federal responsibility but natural resource extraction, safety and health are provincial responsibilities.
As ports develop certain projects, particularly around natural resource extraction, there is the potential for health and safety and environmental protection requirements that are provincial responsibilities that currently would not apply to a federal entity such as the port authority.
So the intention of the amendment is, in fact, to allow the federal government to create the regulations that would reference provincial regulations and provincial standards, to close that gap. In fact, it's ensuring there is no overlap, but it's, in fact, closing the—
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Allen.
We'll go to Mr. Cullen, please, for seven minutes.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses.
I have a brief amount of time so I'll keep my questions short. To follow up on that, Ms. Zatylny, the bill doesn't provide the federal government any specifics to create new environmental or safety regulations. It essentially creates a situation where any federal ports taking over federal lands can enact provincial regulations.
Is that right?
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay, and this is in particular to the potential movement of energy resources. I'm thinking of the port of Prince Rupert and some other ports that are looking to do this. Is this connected at all or is it disconnected?
9:50 a.m.
President, Association of Canadian Port Authorities
Certainly the development project at the port of Prince Rupert, specifically around their LNG project, is one of the examples the government has been looking to as a project that would be helped by this amendment.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that.
To you, Ms. Biss, I'm just looking at this and as was said by Mr. Rankin we had some compelling testimony yesterday. We have established a few things. One is that no one asked for these changes to deprive refugee claimants. None of the provinces did and none of the refugee advocacy groups.
The federal government is going to court again, to appeal the decision from the Federal Court with respect to the stripping away of health benefits to refugee claimants. Is that correct?
9:50 a.m.
Legal Education and Outreach Coordinator, Canada Without Poverty
That's correct, but that is a different issue.
9:50 a.m.
Legal Education and Outreach Coordinator, Canada Without Poverty
It has to do with the IFHP program in terms of health programs.
9:50 a.m.
Legal Education and Outreach Coordinator, Canada Without Poverty
But it is true that both issues do directly deal with the vulnerability of refugees and their ability to access basic needs.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
My question is in connection to that other issue, which is different.
This issue of stripping refugee claimants of social assistance, is it also likely to end up in court?
9:50 a.m.
Legal Education and Outreach Coordinator, Canada Without Poverty
Realistically, there are a number of problems with the bill, with these particular clauses that I have laid out. There are potentially jurisdiction issues in terms of the division of powers. There are certainly human rights issues. It does also seem like there are some charter issues.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Can I say it leaves the federal government vulnerable to court?
9:50 a.m.
Legal Education and Outreach Coordinator, Canada Without Poverty
I would absolutely say that's correct.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So, there are no savings to the federal government by doing this.
9:50 a.m.
Legal Education and Outreach Coordinator, Canada Without Poverty
No, there are not.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Right. So all the federal government can do is spend money on going to court, as they have already on stripping health benefits. Now to follow up, they will end up back in court spending federal dollars, not saving, on stripping refugee claimants of social assistance with nobody asking for this.
It's so good that it's in a budget omnibus bill.
Over to you, Mr. Macdonald. You made a claim that I had not heard yet, that this so-called small business credit will cost $1.4 million by 2016-17. Is that what you said?
November 18th, 2014 / 9:50 a.m.
Senior Economist, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Specifically, in the first year of its operation in 2015, it's likely 200 jobs will be created, which would be a cost of $1.4 million per job created in the first year of operation.
It would be lower in the second year of operation as the multipliers increase slightly.