Evidence of meeting #208 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was payment.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
I'd like to clarify the question. Do military aircraft currently use Nav Canada's services? Do they have their own air navigation services?
May 6th, 2019 / 5:10 p.m.
Director General, Air Policy, Department of Transport
Thank you for the question.
The current exercises we refer to, which the Department of National Defence is undertaking, are supported by Nav Canada. The Department of National Defence looked at whether it would be viable or feasible for them to create their own air navigation services support. They found that it was much more feasible and efficient to use the services already established by Nav Canada.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
If my understanding is correct, they don't use Nav Canada's services, but they're considering the possibility of doing so. Is that correct?
5:10 p.m.
Director General, Air Policy, Department of Transport
They are currently using the services of Nav Canada.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Then I'd like to understand what problem we want to solve here.
5:10 p.m.
Director General, Air Policy, Department of Transport
I mentioned the indemnity that the government entered into with Nav Canada in December of last year. The negotiation of that agreement took a number of years, and it was quite complex. It involved, for example, the government's making the funding decision to take on the liabilities associated with such an indemnity. To streamline the decision-making in the future, should a decision be made to replace the current indemnity, these amendments seek direct authority to be given to the Minister of Transport to issue such an indemnity.
5:10 p.m.
Director General, Air Policy, Department of Transport
That's a complicated question, because it depends on the scenario. For example, you have the worst-case scenario of an attack such as those that happened on the terrible day of September 11, 2001. That's a kind of worst-case scenario whereby there was a level of great impact upon the city of New York and various cities throughout the United States. In that case, the indemnity—the insurance coverage—was, and in the Canadian scenario could be, quite significant.
On the other hand, at the other end of the range, right now it covers off the training exercises that the Canadian Forces undertake with Nav Canada's support. It could then be something smaller in which the insurance payout would not be as significant. Essentially, sometimes, it could be an unquantifiable liability.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay, that explains it.
Are there any other questions or comments?
Thank you very much, Ms. Wiebe.
We turn to division 14, Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act.
Mr. Jones and Mr. Fryer.
5:10 p.m.
Keith Jones Acting Director, International Marine Policy, Department of Transport
Chair, I'm here to speak about a proposed amendment to the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act, the TATC Act for short. By way of background, w hat the tribunal does is it provides an independent mechanism for recourse for anyone affected by a licensing or enforcement decision by either the Minister of Transport or the Canadian Transportation Agency under various federal pieces of legislation regarding transportation.
Last fall, a number of amendments were made to the Marine Liability Act, including the ability to impose administrative monetary penalties. The proposed amendment to the TATC Act is designed to align the two pieces of legislation and to ensure that the tribunal can hear any appeal of an administrative monetary penalty issued under the Marine Liability Act.
I'm afraid I don't have anything more than that. I'm prepared to take any questions.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Acting Director, International Marine Policy, Department of Transport
It is a clarification. It is to ensure—to make it absolutely clear—that the tribunal can hear appeals of administrative monetary penalties levied under the Marine Liability Act.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay.
You look as though you're thinking, Pierre, but you're not thinking out loud just yet. That's a good sign.
Thank you very much, folks. That will complete divisions 13 and 14.
We'll go to division 17, the Federal Courts Act.
If committee members are wondering about divisions 15 and 16, they have been transferred to other committees for the moment and will eventually come back to us.
We have Ms. Richer and Ms. Berthiaume from Justice Canada.
The floor is yours.
5:15 p.m.
Adèle Berthiaume
Good afternoon.
We're here to discuss with you the provision that increases the number of judges at the Federal Court by three.
These additional judges are required to deal with the expected surge in cases due to the proposed changes to the asylum system. The capacity of the system is increasing from the current 26,000 asylum claims a year to 50,000 asylum claims a year. As the increases of the capacity of the asylum system are applied, the volume of cases to the Federal Court will of course increase.
The analysis of the forecast depends on the caseload assumptions that have been provided by client departments, and many efforts are made to make sure that those are accurate and as solid as possible. It's important to avoid developing backlogs at the Federal Court, which would only slow down the asylum matters and could affect the overall jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
It is always harder to catch up on backlogs when they develop. That's why it's important for them not to develop. If the Federal Court becomes the choke point in the system, the objectives of the asylum system won't be met, and that would be unfortunate, given all of the work and the important effect that this initiative is going to have.
That's my short summary. We are happy to address any questions you may have.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Is this addition of three judges a direct consequence of division 16 of the bill? Is it in anticipation of a large number of cases winding up in Federal Court?
5:15 p.m.
Adèle Berthiaume
Yes, it's a direct consequence of that. Cases are processed in several stages and may wind up in the Supreme Court.
The number of cases definitely declines as the stages are completed and depending on the decisions made. However, many of those cases will have to be decided by the Federal Court. That may cause a major problem, particularly regarding asylum claims, as I said, but also for all cases heard by the court.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
I know we can debate the merits of division 16 and the pressure it will put on the Federal Court. I think these cases should be decided instead by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada or as part of a pre-removal risk assessment rather than by the Federal Court. But that's an entirely separate issue.
Will these three new judges focus specifically on immigration cases, refugee status claims and asylum claims, or will they simply be added to the number of available judges?
5:15 p.m.
Adèle Berthiaume
All Federal Court judges have various responsibilities. There's no specific group handling immigration or refugee matters, for example, although those matters form a significant part of their work. They regularly check to see how things are going, the percentages and so on. That's closely looked at. The purpose of adding judges is to ensure that this initiative is a success, but, for the moment, the Federal Court is acting more as a general court.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
I have a final question. As you confirmed, division 17 is related to division 16. What will happen if division 16 doesn't carry? If, in a scenario that, for the moment, is completely hypothetical, the government decided to delete all the provisions of division 16, would it be necessary to retain division 17?
5:20 p.m.
Adèle Berthiaume
I'm not the one who makes those decisions. That division and those positions are definitely in the act to improve the system.
5:20 p.m.
Katherine Richer Senior counsel, Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada Legal services, Department of Justice
This division is definitely related to the other one. Your question should be put to the people who'll be appearing before the other committee because it's directly related to the budget that's been granted to increase the court's capacity. These matters are now before the other committee.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Are there any other questions?
This really has to do with workload, correct?
5:20 p.m.
Senior counsel, Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada Legal services, Department of Justice
It's very unusual, indeed. It has almost purely to do with workload. It's not necessarily directly related to the amendments that are before the other committee.
Budget 2019 approved an increase to the capacity of the immigration tribunal to deal with, before, 26,000 asylum cases a year, but because of the surges we've been seeing, a capacity of 50,000 claims is now being requested.
In terms of the moment you double the capacity of the tribunal, we have the calculations—or sorry, not me but my client, which is Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. They have done the calculations through to how much litigation that means will end up at the Federal Court.