Bill C-1 (Historical)

An Act respecting the Administration of Oaths of Office

[Stephen Erlichman]

CCGG recognizes that Bill C-25 currently reflects changes to the CBCA where there's a perceived consensus among the comments received during the previous round of consultations. However, CCGG has identified the following three additional corporate governance issues that require further consideration. CCGG does not believe Bill C-25 should be held up, however, while these additional issues are considered.

First, the CBCA should facilitate the ability of shareholders to nominate directors. Current methods by which shareholders nominate director candidates are quite simply not effective. As a result, director nominees are almost always chosen by the incumbent board or company management.

Further, in our experience, companies very seldom seek input from shareholders when selecting board nominees. Canada is becoming a laggard in this area of governance. In the United States, for example, 39% of the S&P 500 companies have adopted a meaningful method for shareholders to nominate director candidates. We also understand that direct shareholder input into the director nomination process exists in many other countries around the world.

Second, the CBCA should require an advisory “say on pay” vote by means of an ordinary resolution at each annual meeting of shareholders. The area of such advisory votes is one in which Canada is an international outlier. Periodic say on pay votes are mandatory in the United States, Australia, and such western European countries as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and others.

Third, the CBCA should as a general rule require that the board chair be independent of management. The board chair plays a key role in leading or coordinating the other directors, both during and outside of meetings, in support of the board's obligation to supervise the senior executive team's performance. When the board chair is not independent of management, it results in a serious conflict of interest and obscures the lines of accountability. For example, the oversight of the senior executive team, in particular of the CEO, is one of the board's key responsibilities. A combined board chair and CEO would thus be responsible for leading the body that oversees himself or herself.

Finally, in addition to the three specific issues I've just mentioned, CCGG recommends the creation of a standing external stakeholder advisory body to advise the federal government on corporate governance issues. It's been addressed many times over the past few weeks before this committee that the CBCA has not been substantially amended since 2001, and only twice in the past 40 years. If consensus is what drives this process forward, then we respectfully submit that there is consensus for more regular follow-up.

A standing stakeholder advisory body in corporate governance would support a regular review process. The advisory body could be populated with key government stakeholders and professionals to provide periodic reports on ways to improve the regulatory environment for CBCA public companies as well as federal public financial institutions. Further, such a body could provide helpful feedback regarding the matter in which the provisions in Bill C-25 related to diversity are being interpreted and adopted by public companies.

In closing, we thank you for the opportunity to testify before this committee. Catherine and I would be happy to respond to any questions.

[Miriam Brouillet]

Thank you for your question.

I think, as I mentioned before, that the power that is conferred to the minister under subsection 56.1(1) is a broad power, and she's required to make her decision in light of the medical purpose. If there is a medical purpose, she has the power to use this exemption power.

Further, the minister is required to balance two elements, public health and public safety, in light of the different factors that the Supreme Court laid out. Once she is convinced that there is a medical purpose and that those two elements are balanced, the minister may grant an exemption from provisions of the CDSA. Therefore, that power to act rapidly exists currently under the provision as presented in Bill C-37.

[Terry Campbell, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Bankers Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

We would like to thank the committee for inviting the Canadian Bankers Association to participate in the committees review of Bill C-29.

The CBA works on behalf of 59 domestic banks, foreign bank subsidiaries and foreign bank branches operating in Canada and their 280,000 employees.

Our opening remarks will address the provisions contained in division 5 of part 4 of the bill. These amendments to the Bank Act consolidate and streamline the consumer protection provisions that apply to banks under a federal financial consumer protection framework. My introductory comments are going to focus on the broader aspects of the amendments that will affect the banking industry and our customers.

Building and maintaining a strong client relationship is of fundamental importance to Canada's banks. Banks are an active and essential part of the daily lives of Canadians. Ninety-nine per cent of Canadians have an account with a financial institution, so many millions of Canadians turn to banks every day for products, services, and financial advice. We help Canadians safeguard their money, finance a home, manage their savings, plan their investments, and prepare for retirement.

Banks in Canada take very seriously their role in the lives of individual Canadians, and Canadians trust their banks and value the products and services they provide. In fact, Canada's banks have been recognized internationally for their commitment to providing a good consumer experience. Our banks have been ranked first out of 32 countries in the Capgemini “World Retail Banking Report” every year since 2012.

Bill C-29 consolidates the consumer protection provisions that exist in federal legislation as they have evolved over many years, including new measures, into a single financial consumer protection framework within the Bank Act. By creating a clear federal framework, Bill C-29 ensures that Canadian customers continue to benefit from consistent, safe, and high-quality banking products and services across the country.

Consolidating consumer protection and establishing a uniform set of standards under a single framework will improve the efficiency of financial services regulation, ensure consistent policy across the country, prevent consumer confusion, maximize product availability, and ensure the capacity of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to fulfill its regulatory mandate to inform and protect consumers.

We support the placing of the consumer protection framework under the oversight of a single regulator. The FCAC was created in 2001 to strengthen oversight of consumer regulation and expand consumer education. The industry has a long-standing and strong working relationship with the FCAC in many areas, particularly in the area of financial literacy.

We also support a framework of consumer protection principles that are not prescriptive and that can be adapted to change. Allowing and encouraging further innovation in the financial sector is essential, so that banks can continue to serve the needs of consumers by developing and enhancing financial products and services and the way they are delivered to our customers.

As leaders in financial technology, banks in Canada are constantly innovating, developing new products and services to meet the demands of their customers for greater convenience. Canadians can now bank at any time, from virtually anywhere, through online and/or mobile banking. Every year, more and more Canadians are adopting online and mobile as their preferred means of banking. Despite this trend, however, banks have maintained an extensive branch network across the country, because that is where relationships with their clients are often established and maintained.

More clarity about the implementation of the framework is going to be provided through the development of subsequent regulations, and we look forward to engaging in that process. Our aim would be to achieve a workable, efficient, and flexible approach for the benefit of Canadian consumers.

With the start of the global financial crisis now nearly a decade behind us, it's important to keep in mind that Canada's prudently managed banks, combined with an effective financial services regulatory and supervisory framework, were key reasons for the strength and the resilience of Canada's banking system. A key lesson of that crisis was the importance of a streamlined, coherent, and unified regulatory system, which we have in Canada, with a single regulator responsible for safety and soundness—the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions—and a single regulator for consumer protection, the FCAC.

The CBA and its members have long supported a strong federal regulatory framework for the benefit of consumers. Although Canadians already benefit from a strong protection system, we think the federal framework proposed in Bill C-29 is an important step in the direction of further improving that regime, with a clear, streamlined, and consistent set of regulations that are applied across the country.

Thank you again for inviting us to be here today, and we look forward to your questions.

Thank you.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, everyone, for coming, especially our witnesses from Yukon. As I'm sure Larry can tell you, it's not always an easy trip. It's getting easier, I think. There are more flight options now, but I bare the scars of being the parliamentary secretary for aboriginal affairs and northern development when Bill S-6 was passed, and we had a day in the Yukon when we talked with placer miners, the mining associations, and with Ruth Massie and the Yukon first nations.

Obviously, things were proposed in Bill S-6. There were time limits on the review process to bring it in line with the rest of Canada, exempting projects from reassessment unless there's been significant change, allowing the federal minister to provide binding policy direction, and the ability to delegate to the territorial government on certain issues, so I think those were the four main issues at play.

Have you been consulted? You mentioned in your brief that you'd like to be consulted. Obviously, you weren't consulted before the current Bill C-17 was tabled in the House. Has the government reached out to you to get your point of view subsequent to that tabling, and do you have any comments on those four issues, which are the most important to the placer mining industry, in terms of what was in Bill S-6 and what is proposed to be removed in Bill C-17?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll come to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are here on the study of the cost estimate of Bill C-239, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (Charitable Gifts), and the cost estimate of Bill C-241, an act to amend the Excise Act (School Authorities), and recent reports that the parliamentary budget officer has done.

We have with us today, Jean-Denis Fréchette, the parliamentary budget officer, and a number of officials are with him. Welcome, Jean-Denis and company. We'll hear your opening statement and go from there.

Welcome and thank you.

Motions in amendment

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-15, part of our government's plan to strengthen the middle class and keep Canada's economy strong and growing for the long term.

The measures in the budget implementation act will enable us to move forward on our ambitious economic agenda. It is an agenda that restores hope for the middle class by making smart, necessary investments in our country's future.

It is a plan I was honoured to table in this House on March 22.

Let me begin by emphasizing that we intend to take advantage of a historic opportunity. Thanks to the leadership of governments in the 1990s, Canada's debt position is by far the best in the G7. With interest rates at record lows, now is the time to invest in people and the economy to prepare Canada for a brighter future.

Budget 2016 will support the middle class now by helping Canadian families with important and necessary measures, and it lays the foundation for sustainable, long-term economic growth. In particular, on December 7, 2015, we introduced the middle-class tax cut. Nearly nine million Canadians are now benefiting from lower taxes on every paycheque.

As a second step, budget 2016 introduced the new Canada child benefit. Compared with the existing system, the new Canada child benefit will be simpler, more generous, and tax free. It will also be targeted to those who need it most. With the introduction of the Canada child benefit, about 300,000 fewer children will be living in poverty. In fact, the CCB represents the most significant social policy innovation in a generation. It means real help for real people, and putting more money in the pockets of moms and dads to pay for everything from summer camp to new clothes.

This is only part of what Bill C-15 does to help families directly. In the past, I have spoken in the House about measures that will also help seniors, veterans, and students. Through their efforts, their innovation, and their integrity, Canadians are building a stronger economy for today and for future generations. They rightfully expect their government to work with them in support of those initiatives.

Allow me to highlight a portion of the bill which I have seldom had the chance to address directly in the House.

As members will know, in addition to helping families and making important investments, Bill C-15 also introduces a number of measures in support of our plan to ensure tax fairness and maintain the integrity of the tax system. As we have said many times, we believe all Canadians should be paying their fair share of taxes.

The budget was tabled before this issue dominated the international headlines this spring, but when it did, I am proud to say that Canada was able to stand proud and highlight the action we had just announced in our plan to prevent underground economic activity and tax evasion, as well as aggressive tax planning.

A cornerstone of our action is a $444-million investment over five years for the Canada Revenue Agency to enhance its efforts to crack down on tax evasion and combat tax avoidance. However, we all recognize that assessing tax revenues alone is not enough, and that is why budget 2016 invests an additional $351.6 million over five years to improve the CRA's ability to go after and collect those outstanding tax debts.

In addition, Canada's tax system needs ongoing adjustment to ensure that it is functioning as intended and contributing to the objective of an economy that works for everyone. We believe a stronger revenue base will help support our new investments in education, infrastructure, training, and other programs that will help to secure a better quality of life for Canada's indigenous people, building a stronger, more unified, more prosperous Canada. These are just a few of the measures in the bill.

However, to ensure a brighter future for our kids and grandkids we have to plan much further ahead. As we look out over the horizon we see challenges and we see a world of opportunity.

For starters, Canada’s population is aging. The global economy is volatile. Oil prices are unpredictable. We need to take steps to improve competitiveness and productivity in Canada so that we become drivers of our own success now, and in a generation from now.

As our workforce ages and shrinks, real GDP growth has been forecast to slow from about 3% enjoyed since 1970 to slightly less than 2% over the next 15 years, a one percentage point drop. Productivity is key to a growing economy because when output per worker is higher, firms can pay their employees more, families can work less while earning more, and companies can return larger dividends to their investors or reinvest in their businesses.

I am proud to be working with my cabinet colleagues, the ministers of innovation, trade, labour, and infrastructure, on delivering our long-term growth agenda, but we know that we do not have all of the answers and we are open to innovative new ideas. That is why, a few weeks ago, I hosted my inaugural meeting of the advisory council on economic growth.

Through this growth council, we have brought together some of the best minds, who bring a global perspective and wide-ranging experience that will help us shape the government's growth strategy. The council will help generate the bold and innovative ideas needed to create and sustain long-term economic growth that benefits the middle class and those who are working hard to join it. We want Canadians to be able to afford to send their kids to a quality day care or help their teenagers with a college education and tuition. We want to ensure that every Canadian can put away enough money for a safe and secure retirement.

To conclude, we know the challenges that we face will not be solved overnight or by a single budget, but we also know that good government is not just about today and tomorrow. It is also about the years and decades to come. That is where our focus will be and will continue to be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I call the meeting to order. We are continuing clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-15.

(On clause 212)

The amendment that will be coming forward is NDP-13.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I just want you to also be aware that we cannot.... If witnesses wish to come to committee, we cannot force a question; we have to allow them to come, so basically the discussion of whether we have witnesses or not is moot. If people say they wish to come to a committee to discuss a bill, that is part of what the committees are supposed to do.

Being aware of that, we therefore.... The amendment is that there be two hours to discuss Bill C-210, and that the list of witnesses be given by Thursday at the end of the business day.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The amendment does not carry, so we are back to the original motion by Mr. Vandal, which is for one hour to discuss Bill C-210 on Thursday.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you seek it, I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That Bill C-16, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to a committee of the whole, reported to the House without amendment, concurred in at report stage, read a third time, and passed.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Does Bill C-10 establish a minimum number of jobs maintaining and overhauling Air Canada aircraft in the country?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

How many jobs will remain in Canada after Bill C-10 has been passed?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Good afternoon.

In your opinion, under Bill C-10 in its present form, unfortunately without the amendments that the New Democrats proposed and perhaps with one amendment from the Conservatives, how many jobs maintaining Air Canada aircraft will remain in Canada?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much.

That is another reason that leads me to wonder why we have to act so quickly and why it was decided to impose closure so that Bill C-10 is passed more quickly.

In another comment, I will take the opportunity to talk about the involvement of the two governments. There has been a lot of talk that they need Bill C-10 to be passed, supposedly in order to finalize the understandings that have not been reached. Why is it so urgent to pass Bill C-10?

The amendment that my NDP colleague has introduced allowed me to reflect on this matter. Before we moved to pass this bill, I would like it to have gone back to the House so that committee members could get some answers to these questions. Unfortunately, the time allocation does not allow us to do that.

Thank you.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you.

Given the current legislation and the cases before the courts, is there an obligation that is forcing the government to pass Bill C-10 at this stage? Is there anything in legal or administrative terms that justifies passing a bill like this?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I am pleased to speak to this proposed amendment because it allows me to recall some of the important considerations we heard when the committee studied Bill C-10.

First of all, we had the opportunity to hear from the minister. He told us about Bill C-10, but he was not able to explain the urgent need to act and to pass Bill C-10. Why is the government in such a hurry to pass Bill C-10? Even today, members asking the question have had no answer.

Why is it important to understand the urgency on the part of the government in acting on this matter? It is simple. A number of the groups who testified have told us that it was important for them for Bill C-10 not to be passed in haste, too quickly, without obtaining guarantees in some form. There must be a guarantee that workers’ jobs in this industry will be preserved and that the centres currently located in each of the provinces be maintained. There must be a guarantee that workers’ rights will be preserved, workers who, I remind you, have gone to court on several occasions and have won their case each time. There must be a guarantee that another group of former workers will have the time to present a plan to revive the heavy maintenance industry, even to maintain aircraft in Canada. There must be a guarantee that the quality of the work done here will be preserved, just like our knowledge and our skill in the aviation industry. There must be a guarantee that provinces will be allowed to reach real agreements with Air Canada.

From the outset, we have heard about Air Canada acquiring C Series aircraft from Bombardier but we have never been told the reasoning and the role that Bill C-10 is playing in the acquisition of those aircraft. There seems to be no agreement between the government and Air Canada. There seems to be no agreement with Bombardier either, for the acquisition of these aircraft. However, everyone who has testified here has made a very clear and precise link between those agreements that we have heard nothing about, that are not supposed to exist, but that apparently do exist. If you are following me, it is quite clear.

That is why it is our responsibility to ask questions. Are there legal reasons, administrative reasons? Are there reasons to justify these deadlines that we do not know about and that, as parliamentarians, we should have known about?

You said earlier that you would give us the time. I am new to Parliament and I am not used to all this procedure. Can I ask the witnesses questions about this now? Is this the time? Can I ask questions?