Finance Committee on May 2nd, 2023

[Nicole Girard, Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will start.

The measures with regard to the Citizenship Act are intended to address some legislative gaps. Unlike the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the immigration program, the Citizenship Act and citizenship program have very limited authorities for electronic administration and efficiencies, which are essential for us to continue to improve the modernization of the program under way and to vastly improve client service.

In addition, the citizenship program is the only remaining program in the government that subjects applications for citizenship to a name-based, date-of-birth-based criminality check via the RCMP. Through the budget, amendments are being sought to move to a biometric process, which will be more efficient and will secure and enable more rapid checks.

Those measures together, once the legislation passes and can be implemented, are aimed at catching up to the authorities that exist in the immigration act and will also continue our efforts to vastly improve the service that citizenship applicants expect.

I'll just pass it to my colleague with regard to the other part of your question.

Sorry, I forgot to introduce myself. I'm Nicole Girard, the director general responsible for citizenship policy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you for that.

Be very short, please.

[Michelle Mascoll, Director General, Resettlement Policy Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

I'm Michelle Mascoll, director general of resettlement policy.

Really quickly, for division 17, the objective is to manage application intake to bring the number of applications we receive more in line with the targets set out in our immigration levels plan so that we'll be able to manage our processing times and backlogs better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you to all of you.

Thank you, MP Dzerowicz.

Now we'll go to MP Ste-Marie for two and a half minutes, please.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions are about division 23 of the bill, so it's for the transport officials. Could they please come to the table?

While we're waiting, I'd like to thank Mr. Beech. We just got the answers to the questions we had asked. The information isn't broken down by province and doesn't provide much detail per sector, but we really appreciate the response that was provided.

I'd also like to take this opportunity, Mr. Chair, to reiterate something. If I understood Ms. Dzerowicz correctly, she has numerous questions, so it's very important for everyone on the committee to get the answers to all of their questions before voting on Bill C‑47. I think we'll need at least a hundred or so more committee hours to get through the honourable member's list of questions.

I will now ask the transport officials my questions on division 23 of the bill.

Which exceptions is the Canadian Transportation Agency expected to define in the regulations regarding the minimum compensation air carriers are required to provide to passengers for disruptions caused by a flight delay or cancellation, or by being denied boarding? What will happen to a complaint if the dispute resolution officer doesn't make a decision within the prescribed time frame?

Thank you.

[Colin Stacey]

Thank you.

I'll start with the first question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Could you please introduce yourself?

[Colin Stacey]

My apologies. My name is Colin Stacey, and I am the director general of air policy at Transport Canada.

In response to your first question, Mr. Ste‑Marie, I can say that the Canadian Transportation Agency will be responsible for defining the exceptions in the regulations, so we don't know now what those exceptions will be.

If I understand your second question correctly, you would like to know what consequences air carriers will face when they do not comply with the 30‑day deadline after receiving a complaint. Is that correct?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Yes, that's correct.

What happens if the dispute resolution officer doesn't make a decision within the prescribed time frame?

[Vincent Millette, Director, National Air Services Policy, Department of Transport]

Good afternoon. I am Vincent Millette, director of national air services policy.

If the dispute resolution officer doesn't issue a decision within the prescribed time frame, they would not be complying with the legislative framework, but presumably, they would be allowed to complete their review of the complaint.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

Now it's over to MP Blaikie for two and a half minutes.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

In respect of the Royal Style and Titles Act, I'm curious as to what the practical consequences would be if Parliament weren't to approve these changes. I understand, whether folks like it or not, that Canada is a constitutional monarchy. We have a new monarch, and presumably they have some say in how they're titled.

I'm curious to know what would happen if Parliament didn't institute a new title for the new monarch.

[Joël Girouard]

Thank you. It's Joël Girouard again, from the Privy Council Office.

The royal style and titles are used in formal documents and a variety of situations like that. As I mentioned earlier, we consider it an administrative measure. There's no real consequence if it is not adopted.

The King became the King of Canada last September, and that does not change. The Royal Style and Titles Act simply allows us to formally give him a title. This new version modernizes the title to better reflect Canada's current reality, but there's no practical consequence if it's not adopted.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Okay, so this title is already in use and this is just a housekeeping measure. Is that fair to say?

[Joël Girouard]

The title has not been used to this point. The Queen's old title has been used out of respect for allowing Parliament to express its will. It does not have a practical effect if it is not adopted.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Okay. Thank you very much.

I was hoping that somebody from the Privy Council Office might be able to speak to the final division in the bill, which has to do with the application of privacy principles to federal political parties. I understand that this is a response to a court decision from the province of British Columbia.

I wonder if an official could provide a little more context for the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Ms. Pereira, could you introduce yourself?

[Rachel Pereira, Director, Democratic Institutions, Privy Council Office]

Yes. I'm Rachel Pereira, director of democratic institutions at the Privy Council Office.

Thank you for the question.

If I understood it, the intent of this measure is to establish a single, uniform national privacy policy for federal political parties under the Canada Elections Act. If there are other pieces of legislation, this would deem the federal regime the regime that federal political parties would need to abide by.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Is this coming up in response to any particular court decision or other deliberations about privacy principles, privacy legislation and federal political parties?

[Rachel Pereira]

I can't speak to other pieces of provincial legislation, nor litigation that's in play. I can speak to the intent of the legislation, which is to establish a single national regime for federal political parties. That's to mitigate the potential for a patchwork of different rules and regulations that federal political parties would need to consider depending on potentially which province they're in. It would be a federal regime for all federal political parties.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

You're not in a position to advise the committee whether this—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Blaikie. We've gone well over time.

Now we're going to the Conservatives and MP Lawrence, please, for five minutes.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, thank you to all of you for being here today.

In the budget, it was announced that there would be a 3% cut to departments, pretty much across the board, starting in 2024. I assume that you've probably already started planning towards 2024, or you will soon.

I'll start with you, Mr. Hamilton.

Have you started planning for 2024, and do you believe that it will be easy to remove 3% from your budget?

[Graeme Hamilton]

Thank you very much for the question.

Unfortunately, my area of expertise is outside of the budget planning cycle. I'm not in a position to respond to that question.