Evidence of meeting #82 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was tfsa.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Could we get you to wrap up? We have time for five minutes more.
11:30 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Pensions and Benefits Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Okay, I'm wrapping up.
The government, on the recommendation of the President of the Treasury Board, specified a date by which Treasury Board can establish the short-term plan. If this occurs, the proposed legislation will allow Treasury Board to modify the short-term disability plan. Importantly, it will also enable Treasury Board to establish a new committee composed of bargaining agents and employee representatives which Treasury Board must also establish.
My last point is that because the short-term plan would now duplicate the duration of waiting for a long-term plan, that is also included in the legislation.
Thank you.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you for your presentation.
Colleagues, we have time for three five-minute rounds, so essentially each party will have time for five minutes.
We'll start with Mr. Cullen.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
11:35 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Pensions and Benefits Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Have we done this before?
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Have we ever legislated a term of a bargaining position into law before the bargaining was complete?
11:35 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Pensions and Benefits Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
I'll turn to our legal counsel.
May 26th, 2015 / 11:35 a.m.
Jennifer Champagne Counsel, Treasury Board Secretariat
I cannot speak to prior precedents. There may or may not have been some. Some research would have to be conducted to confirm it.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Does this fall into the government's legal definition of good faith bargaining, when it's prepared to legislate parts of the collective agreement?
11:35 a.m.
Carl Trottier Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
I'll take that question.
The government is negotiating in good faith. We have been with the bargaining agents for over a year now negotiating at the table. This issue has been before them for about a year now and discussions have been going onward.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So you are prepared to legislate rather than negotiate in terms of the public sector sick leave.
11:35 a.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
The legislation is an enabling one, so we're still very hopeful, and the objective and our sights are on settlements with the bargaining agents.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
But you're allowing the government to legislate part of what's being bargained right now. Is that not correct?
11:35 a.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
The legislation provides the ability to set terms and conditions.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Right. That's the broadest definition of good faith I think I've ever heard, to the point of breaking.
In terms of the registry, also in looking for precedents, it's a backdated change to the law, essentially. Is that correct? You called it a gap.
11:35 a.m.
Director General, Policing Policy Directorate, Law Enforcement and Policing Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Exactly. This is a unique situation where you're actually ending a program, the registration of long guns, and it flows from that, that you would not have any legitimate purpose to keep the data. To fully achieve that objective, you do need in this case to address that gap, putting in place retroactive legislation.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay. So retroactive legislation is an interesting precedent and it's a worrisome precedent for some privacy advocates. It's illegal to destroy federal documents under the law, correct?
11:35 a.m.
Director General, Policing Policy Directorate, Law Enforcement and Policing Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Under normal circumstances, it's not appropriate to do that. But the clear objective of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act was to destroy the data, so that was the clear will of Parliament.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yet it wasn't imagined that somebody would seek out the information this way?
11:35 a.m.
Director General, Policing Policy Directorate, Law Enforcement and Policing Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Exactly. Hindsight is 20/20 and this was clearly an omission, and this gap is now being addressed through these amendments.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yet we now have the OPP investigating this. This is a very dangerous precedent, is it not? It would enable future governments, if they so chose, under different circumstances that they called unique, to backdate legislation to retroactively change the law to allow something that was illegal now to be made legal. Is the department not at all concerned with the jurisprudence, the precedent-setting nature of this?
11:35 a.m.
Director General, Policing Policy Directorate, Law Enforcement and Policing Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
No, I think this is a unique situation where there was a specific requirement and a specific provision to destroy the data.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I understand, but I'm trying to think of another circumstance in which government backdated legislation, retroactively changed the law to make something legal that was at the time illegal. I'm not sure how it's going to stand up in a court of law. More importantly, as it's been raised by many, we're setting a precedent by allowing government this kind of power and accepting this kind of power.
Aside from the issue that's in front of us in particular, this precedent for government to go back in time and retroactively make a thing that was illegal now legal seems on the surface very dangerous.