Thank you.
Evidence of meeting #44 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #44 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Is there anything further on that?
(Clause 40 agreed to)
(On clause 41--Staff of Tribunal)
Mr. Cullen.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I just want to understand how this process goes forward. So the tribunal is announced. Does the tribunal come back to Treasury Board and say, “We estimate that with the damage that's been done we're going to need a budget of approximately such and such”? Does Treasury Board then approve the money the tribunal sets up?
One of the powers of government involves staffing and money. You can have a budget, the parliamentary officer can have lots of money or little, and that will affect the job they do. A tribunal is affected the same way. So do the tribunal officers make that pitch to government and then government approves the funds? I want to understand how the process works and who has the power over the cash.
5:20 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Once again I'm sorry, this is something I don't deal with every day. But the catch phrase “with the approval of Treasury Board” is quite standard. So the funding would be obtained through Treasury Board in the normal way. As the minister responsible for the act, the minister would be responsible for making sure things unfolded as they should.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
But again, nothing really stipulates whether the tribunal is the one making it.... You want to avoid the tribunal officers saying, halfway through the process, “We simply don't have the funds to do the job properly”, and government saying, “Tough, this is how it is”, as opposed to the tribunal coming forward at the beginning and saying, “We think it's a million dollars”, and then making their request.
5:25 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
I see what you're saying. In fact, in the provision it does say that the tribunal employs a staff and fixes and pays their remuneration. But the stipulation is, of course, that they can't just do anything. They have to come to Treasury Board, to cabinet, and make their case.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So it ultimately remains a decision of Treasury Board, and therefore it's a political decision as to the size of the tribunal and the extent of their budget. That remains within the powers of Treasury Board and cabinet.
5:25 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
This is fixing and paying the remuneration. So the salaries of these employees are fixed by Treasury Board. They define the amount of remuneration for the salaries.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
But is the global budget for this requested by the tribunal or set by government? That's all I'm trying to figure out.
We've seen incidents before in Parliament--and I know it's not the same--of inquiries where the question of money becomes very important in terms of the effectiveness of the whole process. This process being effective will also be connected somewhat to the resources the tribunal deems appropriate. I just want to be clear that it will ultimately be the government's decision to say, “You're cut off. You only get $100,000.”
December 2nd, 2009 / 5:25 p.m.
Analyst, Nuclear Liability and Emergency Preparedness, Department of Natural Resources
I don't think this refers to that. I think this says that the tribunal will employ the staff they consider necessary. So they get that staff, but the remuneration for that staff is subject to the terms and conditions of Treasury Board. They can't pay their staff more than what Treasury Board approves, but they can hire the staff they need.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
(Clauses 41 and 42 agreed to)
(On clause 43--Inconsistency)
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I need some help understanding this. I don't know the Judges Act, I'm sorry. It says, “In the event of an inconsistency between the two...sitting or retired judge, the Judges Act prevails to the extent of the inconsistency”. Can you help me understand this?
5:25 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Yes. The Judges Act has all kinds of rules for how judges and retired judges are to be treated, paid, and so forth. It is important, because a retired judge would be a very good person to head a tribunal, and might be appointed to the tribunal. So the salary and remuneration set out in the Judges Act for a retired judge to perform certain functions would apply.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So whatever the Judges Act stipulates the government must pay, the government must pay.
5:25 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
That's correct.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
And treatment and days off and all the rest of that stuff--that's all in there?
5:25 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
All the rest of that is in there. We didn't intend to overwrite that.
5:25 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
Yes.
(Clauses 43 and 44 agreed to)
(On clause 45--Powers with respect to witnesses and documents)
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This concerns the question of what bears evidence. In subclause 45(2):
The Tribunal is not, in the hearing of any claim, bound by the legal rules of evidence but it may not receive as evidence anything that would be inadmissible in a court
Can you help me to understand that? It's not bound by the rules of evidence, but evidence must be up to the stipulation of what would be required in a court of law?
5:25 p.m.
Senior Legislative Counsel, Advisory and Development Services Section, Department of Justice
I know that's tough.
They're not bound by the legal rules of evidence. So they can hear people quite informally and expeditiously. That relates to not making it difficult for people to make a claim. So they can relax rules. They're much more relaxed than they would be in a court of law.
However, let's say, for instance, they want some information that is in fact protected by solicitor-client privilege; then it's protected by solicitor-client privilege, but the tribunal can otherwise relax its rules for hearing evidence.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Is this a special consideration entirely or does this exist anywhere else in law? I'm imagining a tribunal judge trying to decipher this if someone were to make a contention.
Let's say the provider challenges a piece of evidence brought before a court and says, “The claimant can't present this because this is not up to the standard of a legal court”, because that's what it says in the second piece....