Evidence of meeting #6 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was account.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Ted Cook  Senior Legislative Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Sean Keenan  Director, Sales Tax Division, Department of Finance
Geoff Trueman  General Director (Analysis), Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Pierre Mercille  Senior Legislative Chief, GST Legislation, Department of Finance
Annette Ryan  Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Michael Duffy  Director, Legislative Policy Analysis, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Ray Cuthbert  Director, CPP/EI Rulings Division, Legislative Policy Directorate, Canada Revenue Agency
François Masse  Chief, Labour, Market Employment Learning, Department of Finance
Jeremy Rudin  Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Soren Halverson  Senior Chief, Corporate Finance and Asset Management, Department of Finance
Tim Gardiner  Director, Energy Systems Management, Petroleum Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
Mitch Bloom  Vice-President, Policy, Planning, Communications and Northern Projects Management Office, Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency
Dennis Duggan  Senior Policy Analyst, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Drew Heavens  Senior Director, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Don Graham  Executive Director, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Dora Benbaruk  Director and General Counsel, Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services, Department of Justice

5:25 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Jeremy Rudin

Yes, I'd be glad to.

As you mentioned, there was a recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision on the application of the anti-money-laundering legislation to the legal profession. That decision made reference to potential problems that would arise out of sections 11 and 65 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, or PCMLTFA, as we like to refer to it.

In the government's view, the concerns raised by the court were about the potential implications of the act as drafted. They did not arise from the intentions that the government had in the original drafting of the act. The government decided that, since the the Court of Appeal found some ambiguity in the interpretation, these provisions should be clarified.

In the government's view, the goal is not to introduce substantive changes to the act, but rather to clarify the original intent. In particular, the proposed amendment to section 11 would clarify that reporting entities, those that have responsibilities under the act, would not be required to disclose any information to FINTRAC, the federal financial intelligence unit, that is subject to solicitor-client privilege. This amendment would clarify that this applies under all circumstances, including when FINTRAC is auditing the entity's compliance with its obligations under the act.

Similarly, with respect to section 65, allow me to give a little bit of background. Entities have requirements under the act. For example, they need to ascertain the identity of people with whom they are transacting business. They need to keep records of their transactions. Section 65 of the act as currently drafted allows FINTRAC, which is the regulator that administers these regulations and audits compliance with these regulations, to disclose non-compliance information to law enforcement for the purpose of a criminal investigation. The purpose of this is to assist in the enforcement of the PCMLTFA. This is done only in very serious situations where there is a possibility that there has been a criminal offence committed because of the lack of compliance with the provisions of the PCMLTFA itself. This is a pretty limited circumstance. There has to be very serious non-compliance with the obligations of the PCMLTFA for it to be a potentially criminal offence. There have been about 40 such disclosures since 2001, or about three or four per year.

These amendments would clarify what the government would argue has always been the intent. These disclosures to law enforcement of non-compliance with the obligations under the PCMLTFA can only be used by law enforcement to investigate potential criminal non-compliance with the PCMLTFA. The disclosures cannot be used to investigate any other crime that the person or entity being investigated under the PCMLTFA may have committed, or to investigate a crime that a client or counterparty of the person or entity being investigated under the act might be involved in.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you very much for that clarification. I want to thank you for being with us this evening.

I understand there is one question on division 14, the Mackenzie gas project. We will ask the officials from CanNor to come forward. It is my understanding that after division 14, we will move directly to divisions 17 and 18, to officials from Treasury Board. We will let the official from PCO go this evening. We are going to move to division 17 after this.

We welcome our officials from CanNor. Mr. Bloom, Ms. Ledgerwood, welcome to the committee.

We have one question from Mr. Hsu.

November 18th, 2013 / 5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Thank you.

Bill C-13, in 2006, also had $500 million for the Mackenzie gas project impact fund. Can you outline the difference between budget 2006 measures in Bill C-13 and the measures in Bill C-4?

5:30 p.m.

Mitch Bloom Vice-President, Policy, Planning, Communications and Northern Projects Management Office, Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency

Sorry, is your question what is the difference between the two bills?

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

What is the difference between the $500 million for the...? What's the difference between the two bills—

5:30 p.m.

Vice-President, Policy, Planning, Communications and Northern Projects Management Office, Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency

Mitch Bloom

I understand.

Originally they had intended to have the administration of this fund conducted through a crown corporation that would have been established to administer the fund going forward. This bill eliminates the crown corporation model and replaces it instead with an approach that would have criteria established by a minister named by the Governor in Council, and then administered subsequent to that without a crown corporation.

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Okay.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you very much, Mr. Hsu.

Thank you for that very direct response to the question. I appreciate your time here this evening.

Colleagues, perhaps we could do divisions 17 and 18 together. The officials are largely the same. I think it makes sense. They are all from Treasury Board.

We welcome Mr. Dennis Duggan, Mr. Graham, Mr. Drew Heavens, and Ms. Benbaruk to the committee.

Can we start with questions, colleagues, or would you like an overview?

Okay, just questions.

Welcome to the committee. We are dealing with divisions 17 and 18.

We will start questions with Ms. Nash, please.

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to all the officials.

My first questions are about the process of making the changes to this act.

The last time there was a similar degree of change to the public sector labour law in Canada, how long a study period was there? How much time was allocated to the study of those changes?

Does anyone there know?

5:35 p.m.

Dennis Duggan Senior Policy Analyst, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat

Yes, that would have been the process that resulted in the Public Service Modernization Act in 2005. The period involved a series of studies and reports going back to 2000, I believe, PS 2000, and there was the report commonly known as the Fryer report, and then there was another study internally. That and the various task forces involved resulted in the Public Service Modernization Act, which amended the PSSRA, created the Public Service Labour Relations Act, and amended the Public Service Employment Act and the FAA.

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

From what I hear you describing, there was a significant consultative process in terms of the study that took place. You talked about a task force and various studies that were undertaken to take a look at those changes. Was there a similar process this time in terms of the changes that are being proposed?

5:35 p.m.

Senior Policy Analyst, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat

Dennis Duggan

No. What did happen between 2005 and this particular process was the five-year review that was conducted with respect to the PSMA, but as far as the specific consultation process is concerned, no.

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Okay.

Why was this process different from in previous years?

5:35 p.m.

Senior Policy Analyst, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat

Dennis Duggan

When we looked at it in terms of the five-year review, we were aware of certain aspects and experiences from the years since the act was amended, but—

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Can you tell me which labour stakeholders were consulted in preparation of the drafting of the legislation?

5:35 p.m.

Senior Policy Analyst, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat

Dennis Duggan

None that I'm aware of; that of course, is because it was part of the budget implementation act.

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

So no labour organizations were consulted. Were any labour law experts consulted for these changes?

5:35 p.m.

Senior Policy Analyst, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat

Dennis Duggan

Our internal advisers were.

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

So internal experts....

Were there individuals involved who have experience in the collective bargaining and arbitration process other than government officials? Was any outside expertise sought?

5:35 p.m.

Senior Policy Analyst, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat

Dennis Duggan

Not that I'm aware....

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Okay.

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

We'll come back to you, Ms. Nash.

We will go to Mr. Keddy, please, for the five-minute round.

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This whole issue of workplace safety obviously is an important issue and is not to be confused with workplace safety issues that are brought forward that are found to be false, or misleading, or frivolous. When these revisions were brought in and the attempt was made to find some balance, I guess I want to go back to the original program and how many workplace safety complaints came forward that were deemed to...that nothing came of them.

5:35 p.m.

Drew Heavens Senior Director, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat

I think you're referring to the changes proposed by labour in the Canada Labour Code.

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

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

Yes.