Bill C-38 (Historical)

Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures

Part 1 of this enactment implements certain income tax measures and related measures proposed in the March 29, 2012 budget. Most notably, it
(a) expands the list of eligible expenses under the Medical Expense Tax Credit to include blood coagulation monitors and their disposable peripherals;
(b) introduces a temporary measure to allow certain family members to open a Registered Disability Savings Plan for an adult individual who might not be able to enter into a contract;
(c) extends, for one year, the temporary Mineral Exploration Tax Credit for flow-through share investors;
(d) allows corporations to make split and late eligible dividend designations;
(e) makes the salary of the Governor General taxable and adjusts that salary;
(f) allows a designated partner of a partnership to provide a waiver on behalf of all partners to extend the time limit for issuing a determination in respect of the partnership;
(g) amends the penalty applicable to promoters of charitable donation tax shelters who file false registration information or who fail to register a tax shelter prior to selling interests in the tax shelter;
(h) introduces a new penalty applicable to tax shelter promoters who fail to respond to a demand to file an information return or who file an information return that contains false or misleading sales information;
(i) limits the period for which a tax shelter identification number is valid to one calendar year;
(j) modifies the rules for registering certain foreign charitable organizations as qualified donees;
(k) amends the rules for determining the extent to which a charity has engaged in political activities; and
(l) provides the Minister of National Revenue with the authority to suspend the privileges, with respect to issuing tax receipts, of a registered charity or a registered Canadian amateur athletic association if the charity or association fails to report information that is required to be filed annually in an information return or devotes resources to political activities in excess of the limits set out in the Income Tax Act.
Part 1 also implements other selected income tax measures and related measures. Most notably, it
(a) amends the Income Tax Act consequential on the implementation of the Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, including the extension of the tax deferral allowed to farmers in a designated area who produce listed grains and receive deferred cash purchase tickets to all Canadian farmers who produce listed grains and receive deferred cash purchase tickets;
(b) provides authority for the Canada Revenue Agency to issue via online notice or regular mail demands to file a return; and
(c) introduces a requirement for commercial tax preparers to file income tax returns electronically.
Part 2 amends the Excise Tax Act to implement certain excise tax and goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed in the March 29, 2012 Budget. It expands the list of GST/HST zero-rated medical and assistive devices as well as the list of GST/HST zero-rated non-prescription drugs that are used to treat life-threatening diseases. It also exempts certain pharmacists’ professional services from the GST/HST, other than prescription drug dispensing services that are already zero-rated. It further allows certain literacy organizations to claim a rebate of the GST and the federal component of the HST paid on the acquisition of books to be given away for free by those organizations. It also implements legislative requirements relating to the Government of British Columbia’s decision to exit the harmonized sales tax framework. Additional amendments to that Act and related regulations in respect of foreign-based rental vehicles temporarily imported by Canadian residents provide, in certain circumstances, relief from the GST/HST, the Green Levy on fuel-inefficient vehicles and the automobile air conditioner tax. This Part further amends that Act to ensure that changes to the standardized fuel consumption test method used for the EnerGuide, as announced on February 17, 2012 by the Minister of Natural Resources, do not affect the application of the Green Levy.
Finally, Part 2 amends the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, the Excise Act, 2001 and the Excise Tax Act to provide authority for the Canada Revenue Agency to issue via online notice or regular mail demands to file a return.
Part 3 contains certain measures related to responsible resource development.
Division 1 of Part 3 enacts the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, which establishes a new federal environmental assessment regime. Assessments are conducted in relation to projects, designated by regulations or by the Minister of the Environment, to determine whether they are likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that fall within the legislative authority of Parliament, or that are directly linked or necessarily incidental to a federal authority’s exercise of a power or performance of a duty or function that is required for the carrying out of the project.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the National Energy Board or a review panel established by the Minister are to conduct assessments within applicable time limits. At the end of an assessment, a decision statement is to be issued to the project proponent who is required to comply with the conditions set out in it.
The enactment provides for cooperation between the federal government and other jurisdictions by enabling the delegation of an environmental assessment, the substitution of the process of another jurisdiction for an environmental assessment under the Act and the exclusion of a project from the application of the Act when there is an equivalent assessment by another jurisdiction. The enactment requires that there be opportunities for public participation during an environmental assessment, that participant funding programs and a public registry be established, and that there be follow-up programs in relation to all environmental assessments. It also provides for powers of inspection and fines.
Finally, the enactment specifies that federal authorities are not to take certain measures regarding the carrying out of projects on federal lands or outside Canada unless they determine that those projects are not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.
This Division also makes related amendments to the Environmental Violations Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and consequential amendments to other Acts, and repeals the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the National Energy Board Act to allow the Governor in Council to make the decision about the issuance of certificates for major pipelines. It amends the Act to establish time limits for regulatory reviews under the Act and to enhance the powers of the National Energy Board Chairperson and the Minister responsible for the Act to ensure that those reviews are conducted in a timely manner. It also amends the Act to permit the National Energy Board to exercise federal jurisdiction over navigation in respect of pipelines and power lines that cross navigable waters and it establishes an administrative monetary penalty system.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act to authorize the National Energy Board to exercise federal jurisdiction over navigation in respect of pipelines and power lines that cross navigable waters.
Division 4 of Part 3 amends the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to extend the maximum allowable term of temporary members of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission from six months to three years. It is also amended to allow for a licence to be transferred with the consent of that Commission and it puts in place an administrative monetary penalty system.
Division 5 of Part 3 amends the Fisheries Act to focus that Act on the protection of fish that support commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fisheries and to more effectively manage those activities that pose the greatest threats to these fisheries. The amendments provide additional clarity for the authorization of serious harm to fish and of deposits of deleterious substances. The amendments allow the Minister to enter into agreements with provinces and with other bodies, provide for the control and management of aquatic invasive species, clarify and expand the powers of inspectors, and permit the Governor in Council to designate another Minister as the Minister responsible for the administration and enforcement of subsections 36(3) to (6) of the Fisheries Act for the purposes of, and in relation to, subject matters set out by order.
Division 6 of Part 3 amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to provide the Minister of the Environment with the authority to renew disposal at sea permits in prescribed circumstances. It is also amended to change the publication requirements for disposal at sea permits and to provide authority to make regulations respecting time limits for their issuance and renewal.
Division 7 of Part 3 amends the Species at Risk Act to allow for the issuance of authorizations with a longer term, to clarify the authority to renew the authorizations and to make compliance with conditions of permits enforceable. The Act is also amended to provide authority to make regulations respecting time limits for the issuance and renewal of permits under the Act. Furthermore, section 77 is amended to ensure that the National Energy Board will be able to issue a certificate when required to do so by the Governor in Council under subsection 54(1) of the National Energy Board Act.
Part 4 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends a number of Acts to eliminate the requirement for the Auditor General of Canada to undertake annual financial audits of certain entities and to assess the performance reports of two agencies. This Division also eliminates other related obligations.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act to prohibit the issuance of life annuity-like products.
Division 3 of Part 4 provides that PPP Canada Inc. is an agent of Her Majesty for purposes limited to its mandated activities at the federal level, including the provision of advice to federal departments and Crown corporations on public-private partnership projects.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Northwest Territories Act, the Nunavut Act and the Yukon Act to provide the authority for the Governor in Council to set, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, the maximum amount of territorial borrowings and to make regulations in relation to those maximum amounts, including what constitutes borrowing, the relevant entities and the valuation of the borrowings.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Financial Administration Act to modify, for parent Crown corporations, the period to which their quarterly financial reports relate, so that it is aligned with their financial year, and to include in the place of certain annual tabling requirements related to the business and activities of parent Crown corporations a requirement to make public consolidated quarterly reports on their business and activities. It also amends the Alternative Fuels Act and the Public Service Employment Act to eliminate certain reporting requirements.
Division 6 of Part 4 amends the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act to establish the Social Security Tribunal and to add provisions authorizing the electronic administration or enforcement of programs, legislation, activities or policies. It also amends the Canada Pension Plan, the Old Age Security Act and the Employment Insurance Act so that appeals from decisions made under those Acts will be heard by the Social Security Tribunal. Finally, it provides for transitional provisions and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act to add provisions relating to the protection of personal information obtained in the course of administering or enforcing the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act and repeals provisions in the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act that are substantially the same as those that are added to the Human Resources and Skills Development Act.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act to add provisions relating to the social insurance registers and Social Insurance Numbers. It also amends the Canada Pension Plan in relation to Social Insurance Numbers and the Employment Insurance Act to repeal certain provisions relating to the social insurance registers and Social Insurance Numbers and to maintain the power to charge the costs of those registers to the Employment Insurance Operating Account.
Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Parks Canada Agency Act to provide that the Agency may enter into agreements with other ministers or bodies to assist in the administration and enforcement of legislation in places outside national parks, national historic sites, national marine conservation areas and other protected heritage areas if considerations of geography make it impractical for the other minister or body to administer and enforce that legislation in those places. It also amends that Act to provide that the Chief Executive Officer is to report to the Minister of the Environment under section 31 of that Act every five years. It amends that Act to remove the requirements for annual corporate plans, annual reports and annual audits, and amends that Act, the Canada National Parks Act and the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act to provide that that Minister is to review management plans for national parks, national historic sites, national marine conservation areas and other protected heritage areas at least every 10 years and is to have any amendments to a plan tabled in Parliament.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act in order to allow public sector investment pools that satisfy certain criteria, including pursuing commercial objectives, to directly invest in a Canadian financial institution, subject to approval by the Minister of Finance.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the National Housing Act, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and the Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada’s Economy Act to enhance the governance and oversight framework of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
This Division also amends the National Housing Act to establish a registry for institutions that issue covered bonds and for covered bond programs and to provide for the protection of covered bond contracts and covered bond collateral in the event of an issuer’s bankruptcy or insolvency. It also makes amendments to the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act to prohibit institutions from issuing covered bonds except within the framework established under the National Housing Act. Finally, it includes a coordinating amendment to the Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada’s Economy Act.
Division 12 of Part 4 implements the Framework Agreement on Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America signed on May 26, 2009.
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act to reflect an increase in Canada’s quota subscription, as related to the ratification of the 2010 Quota and Governance reform resolution of the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund, and to align the timing of the annual report under that Act to correspond to that of the annual report under the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act.
Division 14 of Part 4 amends the Canada Health Act so that members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are included in the definition of “insured person”.
Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to
(a) remove the office of the Inspector General;
(b) require the Security Intelligence Review Committee to submit to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness a certificate on the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service’s annual report; and
(c) increase the information on the Service’s activities to be provided by that Committee to that Minister.
Division 16 of Part 4 amends the Currency Act to clarify certain provisions that relate to the calling in and the redemption of coins.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act in order to implement the total transfer protection for the 2012-2013 fiscal year and to give effect to certain elements of major transfer renewal that were announced by the Minister of Finance on December 19, 2011. It also makes certain administrative amendments to that Act and to the Canada Health Act.
Division 18 of Part 4 amends the Fisheries Act to authorize the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to allocate fish for the purpose of financing scientific and fisheries management activities in the context of joint project agreements.
Division 19 of Part 4 amends the Food and Drugs Act to give the Minister of Health the power to establish a list that sets out prescription drugs or classes of prescription drugs and to provide that the list may be incorporated by reference. It also gives the Minister the power to issue marketing authorizations that exempt a food, or an advertisement with respect to a food, from certain provisions of the Act. The division also provides that a regulation with respect to a food and a marketing authorization may incorporate by reference any document. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 20 of Part 4 amends the Government Employees Compensation Act to allow prescribed entities to be subrogated to the rights of employees to make claims against third parties.
Division 21 of Part 4 amends the International Development Research Centre Act to reduce the maximum number of governors of the Centre to 14, and to consequently change other rules about the number of governors.
Division 22 of Part 4 amends Part I of the Canada Labour Code to require the parties to a collective agreement to file a copy of it with the Minister of Labour, subject to the regulations, as a condition for it to come into force. It amends Part III of that Act to require employers that provide benefits to their employees under long-term disability plans to insure those plans, subject to certain exceptions. The Division also amends that Part to create an offence and to increase maximum fines for offences under that Part.
Division 23 of Part 4 repeals the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act.
Division 24 of Part 4 amends the Old Age Security Act to provide the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development with the authority to waive the requirement for an application for Old Age Security benefits for many eligible seniors, to gradually increase the age of eligibility for the Old Age Security Pension, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the Allowance and the Allowance for the Survivor and to allow individuals to voluntarily defer their Old Age Security Pension up to five years past the age of eligibility, in exchange for a higher, actuarially adjusted, pension.
Division 25 of Part 4 dissolves the Public Appointments Commission and its secretariat.
Division 26 of Part 4 amends the Seeds Act to give the President of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency the power to issue licences to persons authorizing them to perform activities related to controlling or assuring the quality of seeds or seed crops.
Division 27 of Part 4 amends the Statutory Instruments Act to remove the distribution requirements for the Canada Gazette.
Division 28 of Part 4 amends the Investment Canada Act in order to authorize the Minister of Industry to communicate or disclose certain information relating to investments and to accept security in order to promote compliance with undertakings.
Division 29 of Part 4 amends the Customs Act to allow the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to designate a portion of a roadway or other access way that leads to a customs office and that is used by persons arriving in Canada and by persons travelling within Canada as a mixed-traffic corridor. All persons who are travelling in a mixed-traffic corridor must present themselves to a border services officer and state whether they are arriving from a location outside or within Canada.
Division 30 of Part 4 gives retroactive effect to subsections 39(2) and (3) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985.
Division 31 of Part 4 amends the Railway Safety Act to limit the apportionment of costs to a road authority when a grant has been made under section 12 of that Act.
Division 32 of Part 4 amends the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act to replace the two Vice-chairperson positions with two permanent member positions.
Division 33 of Part 4 repeals the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development Act and authorizes the closing out of the affairs of the Centre established by that Act.
Division 34 of Part 4 amends the Health of Animals Act to allow the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to declare certain areas to be control zones in respect of a disease or toxic substance. The enactment also grants the Minister certain powers, including the power to make regulations prohibiting the movement of persons, animals or things in the control zones for the purpose of eliminating a disease or toxic substance or controlling its spread and the power to impose conditions on the movement of animals or things in those zones.
Division 35 of Part 4 amends the Canada School of Public Service Act to abolish the Board of Governors of the Canada School of Public Service and to place certain responsibilities on the Minister designated for the purposes of the Act and on the President of the School.
Division 36 of Part 4 amends the Bank Act by adding a preamble to it.
Division 37 of Part 4 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to eliminate the requirement of a hearing for certain reviews.
Division 38 of Part 4 amends the Coasting Trade Act to add seismic activities to the list of exceptions to the prohibition against foreign ships and non-duty paid ships engaging in the coasting trade.
Division 39 of Part 4 amends the Status of the Artist Act to dissolve the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal and transfer its powers and duties to the Canada Industrial Relations Board.
Division 40 of Part 4 amends the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act to give the Round Table the power to sell or otherwise dispose of its assets and satisfy its debts and liabilities and to give the Minister of the Environment the power to direct the Round Table in respect of the exercise of some of its powers. The Division provides for the repeal of the Act and makes consequential amendments to other acts.
Division 41 of Part 4 amends the Telecommunications Act to change the rules relating to foreign ownership of Canadian carriers eligible to operate as telecommunications common carriers and to permit the recovery of costs associated with the administration and enforcement of the national do not call list.
Division 42 of Part 4 amends the Employment Equity Act to remove the requirements that are specific to the Federal Contractors Program for Employment Equity.
Division 43 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to permit a person’s benefits to be determined by reference to their highest earnings in a given number of weeks, to permit regulations to be made respecting what constitutes suitable employment, to remove the requirement that a consent to deduction be in writing, to provide a limitation period within which certain repayments of overpayments need to be deducted and paid and to clarify the provisions respecting the refund of premiums to self-employed persons. It also amends that Act to modify the Employment Insurance premium rate-setting mechanism, including requiring that the rate be set on a seven-year break-even basis once the Employment Insurance Operating Account returns to balance. The Division makes consequential amendments to the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board Act.
Division 44 of Part 4 amends the Customs Tariff to make certain imported fuels duty-free and to increase the travellers’ exemption thresholds.
Division 45 of Part 4 amends the Canada Marine Act to require provisions of a port authority’s letters patent relating to limits on the authority’s power to borrow money to be recommended by the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance before they are approved by the Governor in Council.
Division 46 of Part 4 amends the First Nations Land Management Act to implement changes made to the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, including changes relating to the description of land that is to be subject to a land code, and to provide for the coming into force of land codes and the development by First Nations of environmental protection regimes.
Division 47 of Part 4 amends the Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Act to increase the maximum indemnity in respect of individual travelling exhibitions, as well as the maximum indemnity in respect of all travelling exhibitions.
Division 48 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act to provide that the chief executive officer of the Authority is appointed by the Governor in Council and that an employee may not replace the chief executive officer for more than 90 days without the Governor in Council’s approval.
Division 49 of Part 4 amends the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act to repeal provisions related to the First Nations Statistical Institute and amends that Act and other Acts to remove any reference to that Institute. It authorizes the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to close out the Institute’s affairs.
Division 50 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act to provide for the payment or reimbursement of fees for career transition services for veterans or their survivors.
Division 51 of Part 4 amends the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act to add powers, duties and functions that are substantially the same as those conferred by the Department of Social Development Act. It repeals the Department of Social Development Act and, in doing so, eliminates the National Council of Welfare.
Division 52 of Part 4 amends the Wage Earner Protection Program Act in order to correct the English version of the definition “eligible wages”.
Division 53 of Part 4 repeals the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act.
Division 54 of Part 4 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2008 to provide for the termination of certain applications for permanent residence that were made before February 27, 2008. This Division also amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things, authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to give instructions establishing and governing classes of permanent residents as part of the economic class and to provide that the User Fees Act does not apply in respect of fees set by those instructions. Furthermore, this Division amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to allow for the retrospective application of certain regulations and certain instructions given by the Minister, if those regulations and instructions so provide, and to authorize regulations to be made respecting requirements imposed on employers in relation to authorizations to work in Canada.
Division 55 of Part 4 enacts the Shared Services Canada Act to establish Shared Services Canada to provide certain administrative services specified by the Governor in Council. The Act provides for the Governor in Council to designate a minister to preside over Shared Services Canada.
Division 56 of Part 4 amends the Assisted Human Reproduction Act to respond to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act that was rendered in 2010, including by repealing the provisions that were found to be unconstitutional and abolishing the Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada.

The Environment

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Northumberland—Peterborough South and it is my sad responsibility to tell her that what she has just read is not true. All major projects did not fall under the interim measures. Only pipeline projects do.

I hold the Minister of Environment and Climate Change in the highest regard. The advice from her officials, if that is where she got the bad advice, was that it was sufficient to add a few conditions to pipeline projects. This misses out entirely that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 puts entirely in the hands of offshore petroleum boards in Atlantic Canada the right to give permits for offshore drilling and none of the interim measures apply to that because it only applies to projects under the National Energy Board.

The extent to which Bill C-38 has destroyed our environmental assessment process is not fully understood by a new government. I am hoping that new government will look at this and decide that Bill C-38 must be removed much more quickly than current plans allow.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise tonight in adjournment proceedings to pursue a question that I originally asked on March 24. It pertains to something that is fundamental to the concept that Canada has any framework of environmental law, any regimen of review in advance before large projects proceed.

In a strange quirk of history, I was actually in the office of the Minister of the Environment in the Mulroney administration when I shepherded through the Privy Council Office permission to legislate the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It finally passed into law. It was passed under the Mulroney administration, received royal assent under the administration of the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, and it has evolved since then.

It had as its cornerstone principles that the environmental assessment process must engage Canadians. Public participation and rights of public participation were fundamental to that act. So, too, was a broad understanding of what environment means, including the full environment, marine, terrestrial, all aspects of the environment, human health and the environment, even socio-economic impacts, and even local community values.

That environmental assessment process required that alternatives be reviewed. A project was not just approved; the question was actually asked as to whether there was a better way to do something which would cause less environmental damage.

All of that was destroyed. It was destroyed completely in omnibus budget Bill C-38 in spring 2012. Those of us in the opposition parties fought it as hard as we could. Liberals, New Democrats, Greens, and the Bloc, we tried to protect the cornerstone of environmental law, and we lost because might makes right and the Conservative government at the time forced through the acceptance of something called the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012.

It is not an environmental assessment act at all. It fails even in comparison to environmental assessments conducted by developing countries. It is a joke of an environmental assessment act. To make it worse, it took away the fundamental principle of public participation. That was a fundamental principle of our cornerstone of our environmental assessment law, and it is gone. The new CEAA 2012 says that only those parties who are directly affected, such as if one lives next door to a large quarry, next door to a large LNG facility, have a right to participate.

It took away the heart and soul and rigour of environmental assessment law. Worse than that, in the case of energy projects, it made up a whole new regime. It said that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 does not apply through its normal agency operations if it is a pipeline, a nuclear facility, or an offshore oil and gas facility. In those cases, the National Energy Board for the first time in Canadian history was mandated to do environmental assessments. So, too, were the offshore petroleum boards for Newfoundland and Labrador, for Nova Scotia, as was the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. They were given the authority to do environmental assessments.

Now, we have lived through quite a few of these. I can say without a shadow of a doubt and without fear of contradiction from any person in the public interest or environmentalist who has gone through that process, they are a sham.

Here we are, it is June 1, 2016, and I ask the government opposite, why are we still operating under Bill C-38's destruction of our environmental law? I ask, as I did on March 24, when can we see the end of Bill C-38 and bring back real environmental assessment in Canada?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

We have a number of documents showing that some of those core programs were, in fact, impacted. We'll put a written question through to your office, and with the endorsement of the minister, we can get some answers.

Bill C-38 very specifically went after our environmental assessment. I can't help but smile ironically when I hear my Conservative colleagues talk about this decision around the assessment of projects to be a political one, because it was in fact the Conservatives who made the choice to take it away from the National Energy Board exclusively and put it into the hands of cabinet.

Have you considered moving it out of the hands of cabinet and back towards the regulator, which is supposed to be non-political and dispassionate about these things, using the science that we so trust?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Fantastic. I will see you there. Bring your kids. Mine will be there. For those who have never been, if you want to see the true power of Canada and the beauty of the Haida people in action, come up to the northwest of British Columbia.

I have a question about Bill C-38. We talked about this terrible omnibus bill that came through. It not only changed environmental assessments, it also slashed a number of the budgets in your department. Does budget 2016 seek to restore the funding that was cut, in terms of water quality management and greenhouse gas emissions monitoring? Do you have a sense of that? If you don't, could you get back to the committee with an assessment, perhaps from your department, as to what was cut in Bill C-38 and what you hope to restore in terms of that critical funding?

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Brampton Centre for sharing his time with me. It is such an honour for me to speak to budget 2016 this afternoon.

I am going to divide the 10 minutes that I have into three general categories: first, the overall quality of the budgetary information; second, a quick review of those things that are pretty good, but not good enough; and third, concerns about the environmental content of the budget.

First, on the quality of the budget, there is something that I think parliamentarians need to spend a lot more time talking about and demanding of Finance Canada. It has been a number of years since I have been able to find in the budget of Canada something that I think most Canadians would expect us to find, something called a budget: a statement of revenues, a statement of expenses, a bottom line, clear information.

I started saying with the previous government that we should really stop calling it the budget and call it the annual spring thick brochure so we would know what we were talking about. I expected more clarity of information, frankly, from the new finance minister, but as we have seen in the information from the parliamentary budget office in its review of this document, we still do not have detailed tables to identify the impacts of changes. Budget 2016 has actually shortened the time horizon on cost estimates from five years to two years, and it is going to be increasingly difficult to reconcile the program information with the budgetary information with our main estimates and supplementary estimates. I urge the new government to make sure that 2016 is the last budget that is not really a budget.

In addition to the things that the PBO has asked for, I would like to see a return to budget documents that include a statement of the budgets that are comparable from the previous year to the next year, department by department. Quite often in the budgets over the last number of years, we can see an announcement that there is money for a department to do whatever, but we cannot figure out for months, if we ever can, whether that is new money, re-profiled money, or whether it is a real commitment. I would like to see that.

Another thing I would like the Minister of Finance to do before next year, and as a matter of fact as quickly as possible, is present legislation to enshrine the parliamentary budget office and the parliamentary budget officer as independent officers of Parliament, properly funded and not subsumed in the budget of the Library of Parliament. The PBO does an amazing job for us as parliamentarians. It should not have to fight tooth and claw for information from Finance Canada. It should be as available to them as it is to us, and we are not seeing that change yet.

This budget is clearly much more welcome to the Green Party of Canada than the ones over the last 10 years. I do not open it and cringe and fear weeping at every page. Therefore, let me go through those things that are good, but not good enough.

It is certainly welcome to see $8.4 billion allocated to first nations, Métis, and Inuit communities. It is good, but not good enough, because it neglected where we really need to see some increased spending, which is on the care of children in those communities. Specific child care dollars were missed. We need more attention on those key areas. It is certainly welcome, but falls a bit short there. Actually, it is more than a bit short. It completely omits, as Cindy Blackstock has pointed out, money for first nations children and to make sure we act on all the commitments under the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

I was pleased to see action to assist young Canadians or any students with student debt in making that more manageable, but when one reads very carefully, one finds that there is no new money for that. It is re-profiled in ways that will help students carry student debt and ensure they do not have to start paying student debt back until they are making more money. It is encouraging, but not good enough.

There is more money for international development for Global Affairs Canada, but not nearly enough to catch up to where Canada should be. I want to see a reinstatement of our goal as a nation to 0.7% of our GDP into international development assistance. We are far short of that, even with the modest increase to spending in this budget.

It was very welcome to see money for housing and the federal government being involved again in housing. It is very important that we do that, but I was very disappointed not to see money in this budget for energy retrofits. I will return to that.

It is also welcome to see a return to the funding of basic science and away from the notion that we will not fund anything unless it has an immediate commercial application. It is very welcome to see a return to basic science research and more money for hiring scientists, such as the $40 million that was recently announced for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to start rehiring scientists. Parks and marine protected areas also get funding.

One of Canada's greatest environmental thought leaders passed away earlier this year. I would like to take a moment to note that Jim MacNeill's passing is devastating to the whole policy community that has done any work on sustainable development. Jim MacNeill always said that the single most important environmental statement from any government is its budget. After analyzing this budget for the environmental promises, that is where we find the deepest disappointment.

First, on infrastructure, during the election campaign the Liberals promised to spend enough on infrastructure to stimulate our economy to hire a great deal more people to ensure that we have a strong and vibrant economy that could get us out of the deficit. That was the premise of the Liberals' election campaign. I have to say I do not quibble with that. The Green Party platform was a balanced budget, but I am easily persuaded that in a weak, stagnant economy, when the cost of borrowing is as low as it is today, it is not a bad idea to go into deficit to kick-start the economy. It is a good idea. However, the Liberals fell far short of what needs to be done to create the investments that we need in infrastructure and green infrastructure to create that vibrant economy.

In a nutshell, we read in this budget that over the next 10 years there will be $120 billion invested in infrastructure. That is a big number and it sounds great, until we realize that part one is the next five years, past the next election, in which less than 10% of that money, $11.9 billion, will be spent. The 90% of $120 billion will come to us in the second five-year period. That is important to note, because it means that for public transit money, which is desperately needed, there is only $3.4 billion over three years. It is not enough to significantly reduce greenhouse gases by moving us to public transit. A key piece of stimulus spending that would have put tens of thousands of Canadians to work quickly is to fund eco-energy projects.

With the previous Liberal government, under former prime minister Paul Martin who created the program, it was wildly successful. It delivered on greenhouse gas reductions. Homeowners loved it. Contractors loved it. Building supply companies loved it. It worked. It should have come back in this budget and it should have been expanded to include institutions like universities, schools, and hospitals, to replace inefficient furnaces, to bring in heat pumps, and to employ an army of carpenters, electricians, and plumbers who could go to work to deliver. It is missing and that is a shame. I hope it will get serious consideration before the 2017 budget so that we can actually attack the 30% of greenhouse gases that come from leaky buildings in Canada.

However, I have to say the most despairing part in reading the budget was when I came to a section which has the heading, “Restoring trust in environmental assessment”. This is at page 165 in the budget. Restoring trust in environmental assessment requires fixing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, brought in originally in 1993, was repealed in 2012 in the spring omnibus budget bill, Bill C-38.

This section of the budget suggests we are going to keep the broken, bogus, useless Environmental Assessment Act that was brought in under Bill C-38, and that we are going to keep it for four more years. There is a specific reference to it getting funded for four more years. This is an enormous mistake, and it must be reversed. Similarly, we must get rid of what Bill C-38 did to our Fisheries Act, to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which was in the fall omnibus budget bill, Bill C-45.

We need to fix our environmental laws if we are going to have a hope of restoring public trust in the environmental assessment process. This must be fixed and it is a budgetary issue. However, it is an urgent parliamentary concern that we undo the damage that every single member of the opposition fought against in 2012. Every New Democrat, every Liberal, and every Green MP fought that. We need to pay attention to the mistakes in this budget and fix them immediately.

[Colin Busby, Associate Director, Research, C.D. Howe Institute]

I thought I had 10 minutes, but I'll try to cut it down.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members, for the invitation to be here today. I plan to spend roughly half of my time talking about recent changes to the EI program, particularly the more controversial pieces. I want to spend the other half of my time talking about the topic of EI access, which I understand the committee is interested in. I'm going to focus my comments mainly on the concept of regular benefits.

Two recent changes to EI in particular have received a tremendous amount of public attention. They are the connecting Canadians with available jobs initiative and the variable best weeks approach to calculating EI benefits.

In 2012, Bill C-38 included the connecting Canadians with available jobs initiative. Its intention was to ensure that unemployed Canadians would be better connected with Canadian jobs—jobs in their local area—and to clarify their responsibility to undertake a reasonable job search for suitable employment while receiving benefits.

I think the first two aspects of the reforms, which intend to improve labour market information and job matching with employers, and ensure that temporary foreign workers are not replacing Canadian workers, are reasonably admirable aspects of the policy, and I think they have reasonably broad support.

The aspect of the reform that obviously bolstered the responsibility of workers to undertake a reasonable job search did, however, spark a considerable uproar. The new rules, as most of you know, set different job search efforts and requirements, as well as willingness to accept job vacancies based on categories of claimants.

On one end of the scale, frequent claimants are required to face stronger search processes earlier on in their claims, whereas what are called long-tenured workers—workers with very little history with EI—face pressures that really pick up later on in their claims but also start off a little bit more rigorously than they used to.

I think it would be fair to classify these rules as what economists traditionally refer to as a type of experience rating, which is meant to adjust the parameters of the program based on one's history as a way of discouraging dependence and reliance on the program. However, I would argue that this is a very watered down and convoluted type of experience rating. There is probably a good reason as to why. There is a very long history of trying to implement experience rating in employment insurance in Canada and to gradually reduce the dependence of seasonal industry workers on the program, although nearly all attempts to do so have been reversed.

Employer-based experience rating was deemed too politically difficult to implement in the early 1990s, and employee-based experience rating, introduced in the late 1990s, which alters benefits according to history, was reversed in 2001 under intense pressure, pressure that remains to this day. For instance, in 2012, when these changes were announced, the Atlantic Canadian premiers held a joint press conference to criticize the changes. I'm going point out that most troubling here is really just how modest these reforms are. I will go on to discuss how I think it portrays a really rather sober context for the possibilities of widespread EI reform in Canada.

I think there is indeed significant evidence supporting the rationale for the announced reforms. A large number of EI claimants likely do not fulfill their job search obligations while collecting benefits. A study by HRSDC, currently ESDC, calculated in a reasonably conservative way that around 15% of EI regular claimants did not look for work while receiving benefits and did not have a good reason for not doing so. Of these individuals, the vast majority, around 85%, were waiting to be recalled to a former job. In other words, they were waiting for seasonal employment to recommence.

In fiscal year 2013-14, the year in which the new rules came into effect, there were around 1,080 total disentitlements because claimants failed to search for work or refused suitable employment. These represent only 0.08% or around one-tenth of 1% of all EI regular and fishing claims that year. Further, the number of additional disentitlements relative to the prior year was 580, which makes for a total impact of one-twentieth of 1% of all EI claims.

Prior EI monitoring assessment reports have highlighted that a deeper review is under way and should have been completed by the end of 2015. I have no access to those documents, but I'm sure the clerk and your analysts are well ahead of me in getting their hands on them, and I strongly encourage the committee to get their hands on that work prior to coming up with the recommendation.

There are indications that those changes might have been very expensive given the results that we've seen and the intended behavioural changes. The greater issue I have with the prior reform is that not only does it appear to have a limited influence in dealing with the issue of frequent claimants, but it has made the administration of the system much more complex and cumbersome.

Furthermore, it's not clear to me as to why long-tenured workers, who have no history or very little history of claiming EI, should fall under stricter rules than those that existed prior to reform. There is no evidence to suggest that these workers are at risk of becoming frequent claimants, plus there is every indication that these workers have high attachment to the labour force.

Now to the question of EI access, and I'll be brief.

As this committee goes forward, I want to point out that these concepts are fraught with pitfalls and conventional misunderstandings, so one must be very careful when framing the issue of EI eligibility and EI access. The oft-mentioned 40% figure refers to the ratio of EI beneficiaries to unemployed Canadians. It is a snapshot of the number of workers receiving EI benefits divided by the number of individuals who are unemployed. This ratio is, however, just simply an indicator of how large the federal role in overall income support programs is, independent of the EI program's role as an insurance program against unexpected job loss.

It is true that relative to the 1970s and 1980s the federal role in overall income support programs is smaller today. But this is true mainly because there have been important changes to the composition of unemployed workers and because of reforms to the program in the 1990s. There have been no large changes to EI access criteria since the mid-1990s, and there's been no movement in the beneficiaries-to-unemployed ratio since then.

[Chief Perry Bellegarde, National Chief, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[Witness speaks in Cree]

In Cree, Mr. Chairman, I basically said that I'm very happy to be here. I acknowledged the men and women, all my friends around the table, and gave a heartfelt thank you for the welcome here.

I have a bit of a presentation to go through on behalf of our Assembly of First Nations, so I'll get right to it. You each have a copy of it in your kit.

When I was asked to be here, and to focus on certain agenda items and certain topics, but to focus more on “misconception training”—that's what people wanted to get into—I said, okay, I can prepare a package to talk about structure, governance, inherent rights, treaty rights, some constitutional dialogue on the time frames of things that impacted on us as first nations people, some of the recent Supreme Court decisions, and our recent December 10 meeting, where the Prime Minister committed to a certain number of things. That's the outline of what I want to get into here this afternoon.

The AFN, our Assembly of First Nations, is a national advocacy organization representing 634 first nations across Canada with 58 different indigenous languages. You can name a reserve, any reserve....

In British Columbia there are 203 first nations. In Alberta you have 47. In Saskatchewan you have 74. In Manitoba you have 67. In Ontario you have 134, and in Quebec 42. On the east coast there are 30-plus first nations, with the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs. In the NWT you have 40-plus first nations. Yukon has 14. In total you have 634 first nations, with 58 different languages that are unique. I stress that.

The Assembly of First Nations is made up of those different nations, different tribes. Some have pre-Confederation treaties. Some have numbered treaties, Victorian treaties. Some have modern-day treaties. Some are inside the Indian Act and some are outside the Indian Act. So it's about knowing who you're working with, the background, the politics.

At the AFN we have 10 regional chiefs, one from every province, who sit with me as my executive. Regional Chief Ghislain Picard, from la belle province du Québec, sits with me, along with Regional Chief Day from Ontario. We all sit together monthly. We have quarterly meetings, but we also bring together our chiefs of Canada twice a year: three days in December and three days in July.

The national chief is elected by the 634 chiefs every three years. I go to the polls in July 2018, so you're stuck with me for the next number of years. I don't plan on going anywhere.

At the AFN we also have resolutions. Our chiefs give us mandates, resolutions, and direction, political direction. We also have chiefs committees. With 10 regional chiefs, I hand out portfolios. For example, we're having an education forum. That's the portfolio of Regional Chief Bobby Cameron from Saskatchewan. You have 500 people at the Delta today talking about education and the path forward, about legislation. Who holds the pen if we draft legislation so that there's stable funding in place for schools, and O and M operations on the reserve? All of these things are being talked about. In health care it's Regional Chief Day. We have chiefs committees on health and on education. That's our structure as the Assembly of First Nations.

Now, a lot of people will say—on this slide here, I've applied it myself from Little Black Bear—that we put the Creator on top, and then the people. All of the people, on reserve and off reserve, get to vote for our chief and council at Little Black Bear. Because of the Supreme Court of Canada's Corbiere decision, no matter where you reside, whether you live in Ottawa, Toronto, Regina, or Vancouver.... When there's an election at Little Black Bear, I have the right to go home and vote. There's no exclusion. That's the Corbiere decision. Our chiefs and councils represent all their membership. That's the first point I'll make. Little Black Bear is one reserve out of those 634.

Then we belong to a thing called an agency, File Hills Agency, five reserves that work together back home. We provide our stand-alone police service agreement back home. We have health care services. We work together as five reserves: Star Blanket, Okanese, Peepeekisis, Little Black Bear, and Carry the Kettle. There's no election there, but we work together to provide services.

Then we belong to a thing called the tribal council, the File Hills Qu’Appelle Tribal Council. There are 11 reserves that work together as a tribal council back in Saskatchewan. Again, they get together, the chiefs and council, and elect a tribal chief or tribal chair, whatever you want to call it. There are services and programs, a little bit of politics sometimes, and advocacy. That's what it is.

Then there's FSIN. Little Black Bear belongs to the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. There are 74 reserves in Saskatchewan, and they work together politically under that umbrella.

Little Black Bear as well belongs to the Assembly of First Nations, 634 first nations.

I take the time to explain this because wherever you're from, as members of Parliament, you might have first nations in your territory. Apply that to them. They'll have a similar structure. They'll have a similar way of being organized. Whether you're from northern Ontario, Quebec, or B.C., it's similar. You just have to know the structure.

The AFN, I say, is on the bottom, not on top. That's how I explain these things. It's an advocacy organization. It's respectful of the diversity. It's responsive to the needs that have been identified by our chiefs and leaders across Canada, and it's relevant as a national organization for bringing about policy and legislative change.

Then I also put to the side Little Black Bear as a signatory to Treaty 4. We're part of the Victorian treaties, the numbered treaties. I put that there just to show you. When we talk about inherent rights and treaty rights and self-determination, I use that as an example. We might be 4.5% of Canada's population as indigenous peoples, but we're not ethnic minorities. We're indigenous peoples with the inherent right to self-determination. We have our own languages, our own laws, our own lands, our own people, and our own identifiable forms of government, the five elements you need in international law for that right to self-determination to be recognized and respected. We have them.

That was exercised when we entered into this nation-to-nation relationship with the crown in right of Canada, the crown in right of Great Britain. Because of the 1982 patriation of the Constitution, it is now the crown in right of Canada. That's for treaties, nation to nation. We always used to say that nations make treaties; treaties do not make nations. Now, because we agree to coexist and share the land and resource wealth, we're all treaty people: everyone in this room, including me, we're all treaty people.

That treaty relationship we hold onto very dearly. That sovereign, that relationship with the crown is something we respect very greatly, because it's a covenant. That sanctity of contract, that sanctity of agreement is something we hold very dearly as indigenous peoples. It is like the shaking of a hand, the coming together of indigenous peoples and non-indigenous peoples, when you see a treaty medallion. You see that on the medallion it says for as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the rivers flow. Queen Victoria is on the back of that medallion. But as well, it is the Creator watching. That's why we say it's a covenant. Ceremonies were utilized in the consecration of that nation-to-nation agreement.

In Treaty 4, in treaties, the nations there are the Cree peoples, the Nakota Assiniboine peoples, and the Saulteaux/Anishinabe Ojibwa peoples. Three different nations or tribes are signatories to Treaty 4. There are 34 first nations chiefs.

That's a little bit of the overview in terms of structure. Just think about all your own first nations now.

There's the issue of portability of rights we have to get our heads around. I'm not a treaty Indian just because I live on the reserve. Portability of rights and portability of services and programs all have to be contemplated now. I have the right to vote for my chief and council. Now 50% of our people reside off reserve, off the community. That's an important point to raise.

As I said to our officials this morning at the Delta, when we talk about Indian control of Indian education and the need to invest in proper schools on the reserve, and making sure that on the one hand there are math, science, literacy, and numeracy, what's equally important on the other hand are your languages and your sense of tradition. There are two systems. Our children walk in both worlds. We need to balance that. But bear in mind as well that we need to work with provincial governments, because 50% of our people reside off the reserve, in cities, so it's about influencing those systems in the cities and towns as well. What we need to work on is twofold. Put that as itself now.

The next slide is on the time frame. These things are important because they're part of Canada's Constitution. All these things that I'm going to be talking about are part of it. I start the timeline with this thing called the doctrine of discovery. It's very important.

It's very important, and I call it an illegal and racist doctrine. That's what I say. There are terms that I'm using now called “assumed Crown sovereignty” and “assumed Crown jurisdiction”, because that doctrine of discovery is coming under fire not only nationally, but internationally, within the United Nations, which is why we're trying to get an audience with Pope Francis.

This is a whole story unto itself, this doctrine of discovery, but you can start with that piece. From there, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 is very important, because the crown recognized first nations title to land and territory. It's a very important piece of legislation or, if you will, our agreement. That's part of Canada's addendums to the Constitution.

Next, I talk about the nation-to-nation relationship and the treaty-making process. There are the pre-Confederation treaties, the Robinson-Huron and Robinson-Superior treaties, and the numbered treaties. John A. Macdonald was the prime minister of the day. He realized that he didn't have title to the territory lands, so he devised an instrument called treaties, and he tasked Alexander Morris, on behalf of the crown, the Queen, to go out and cut a deal with the Indians out west. Alexander Morris was the treaty commissioner. It was a very high office. That was the making of the treaties in the 1800s.

I've put the residential schools next, which were established in the 1800s. This is a very important timeline. It's a very important piece of work that had a negative impact on indigenous peoples.

Then, of course, there's the BNA Act. Why have I put that there? Because of section 91(24): the federal government is responsible for Indians and Indian lands. It doesn't say “Indians on Indian lands”. It just says Indians and Indian lands. That's further recognition of title.

Then I talk about the Imperial Order in Council of 1870. It's part of Canada's Constitution. Basically, in English words, it says that for what lands are taken up for settlement in the Northwest Territories—it doesn't say “Indians” or “first nations”, but uses the word “aborigines”—they are supposed to be compensated on a fair and equitable basis when lands are taken up for settlement. That's a very important piece of work, that 1870 order in council.

Then there's the Indian Act of 1876, which we still have to this day. Why I've put it there is that right up until 1951 it was illegal for Indians to get access to legal counsel. We couldn't have access to a lawyer until 1951. We couldn't leave the reserve without a permit until 1951. The Indian Act is a big challenge for us now, but it's still there.

Between the residential school system and the Indian Act, between those two things, you can see the hurt and the harm that have been done to our people, including breaking up our governance system and imposing two-year elective systems, throwing out the clan mothers, throwing out our hereditary chiefs, and throwing out our traditional chiefs. All of our ways of governing ourselves were no good, and you imposed a two-year elective system, this Indian Act. So the challenges in 2016 and beyond are about what we do now to move beyond the Indian Act. That's the big challenge for us.

There's the NRTA of 1930. People want to talk about a national energy strategy. People want to talk about resource revenue sharing. The natural resources transfer agreement was unilaterally passed in 1930 by the federal government, passed in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. They had total control in their provincial boundaries over the oil, the coal, the potash, the uranium, the trees, the water, everything. It was unilaterally done in section 10 in 1930: “subject to existing trusts, this will be done”. We've always maintained that there's a crown/federal fiduciary trust obligation.

In 1974 the modern treaty-making process kicked in because of the Calder decision, as well as the 1975 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, and all those things. Then in 1982, the patriation of the Constitution, section 35, existing aboriginal treaty rights are recognized and affirmed: a full box of rights or empty box of rights, and what process to utilize to fill that up: a political process and/or legal process? Then, of course, there's the UN declaration of 2007.

The timeline is very important. Just to get our heads around the constitutional framework, that is why we say there's a crown federal fiduciary trust obligation to Indians and first nations people. That's there.

Legally now, there were the recent Delgamuukw and Sparrow Supreme Court of Canada decisions. All members of Parliament should know all these cases. All 338 members of Parliament should know the things I'm talking about: Delgamuukw, Sparrow, the Haida, Mikisew Cree, the Marshall decision on the east coast, the treaty right to commercial fish. This is the first time ever that the Supreme Court of Canada went back and made an addendum to its initial ruling because of Marshall. I just flag these ones, some of the high-level ones. Then, of course, there is Tsilhqot’in around aboriginal rights and title.

The judicial branch of government is saying something very clearly when it comes to rights recognition, aboriginal rights and title, treaty rights. How many Supreme Court of Canada decisions were we winning? We see that. That shows you this right here.

We say these are all rights that are minimum standards for the survival, dignity, and well-being of indigenous people, no question. The issue is that the judicial branch is saying this, but the legislative and the executive branches of governments are not keeping up with the policy and legislative changes as dictated by this one over here. That's the challenge moving forward. That the legislative and the executive branches of governments have to keep up with what the judicial branch is saying, and that means policy and legislative changes. So, put that on the shelf now.

Before October 19, we campaigned very hard in the sense of getting our issues onto all the party platform agendas, every one. I tried to get on the caucuses. I've been to the Liberal caucus. I've been to the NDP caucus. I talked to as many members of Parliament from the Conservatives as I could. I went to the Green caucus. There were a couple of people. Educating and making them aware of what the issues are in closing the gap, this was what we used. This was before October 19.

There are six themes: strengthening first nations, families, and communities; sharing equitable funding, in other words lifting the 2% funding cap that's been there for 20 years; upholding aboriginal treaty rights; respecting the environment, which means looking at Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, and more involvement on resource projects across Canada, the Energy Board; revitalizing indigenous languages; and implementing the TRC calls to action.

That was before October 19. We had the Prime Minister come to our chiefs assembly in December. He committed to five items. You can see the reflection, you can see the mirror almost, if you will, to what we put as priority items as indigenous peoples.

First, a national inquiry be committed to the chiefs of Canada. That's ongoing. It's in the preconsultation phase now. Three ministers are leading that good process.

Second, making significant investments in education is very important. How do you get out of poverty? Good quality education.

Third, he talked about removing the 2% funding cap that's been in place, which is a cap on potential, a cap on growth. The fiscal frameworks that exist now through the contribution agreements don't keep up with inflation, don't keep up with the rising population. The fastest growing segment in Canada is young first nation men and women. It's not based on needs, so the gap that needs to be closed is huge. We talked about moving that and moving toward long-term sustainable funding relationships with the crown so that there's predictability.

Fourth, he talked about implementing the 94 calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which is very important, along with a full federal law review of imposed legislation.

I expand that one to include not only federal laws but also policies, because a comprehensive claims policy, the specific claims policy, the inherent right to self-government policy, and the additions-to-reserve policy haven't been updated in 20-plus years, and they're based on flawed views on termination of rights and title, not recognition of rights and title, as referenced in those Supreme Court of Canada decisions.

There has to be not only a federal law review but a federal law and policy review to get into line with what your own Supreme Court is saying. So, there is much work to do going forward.

This, friends and relatives, is just an overview.

I want to show, from one reserve's perspective—my home reserve where I grew up, Little Black Bear—how it all fits in going forward. On March 22 we're hoping these key strategic investments will be made in all these areas to close the gap.

With regard to the gap I am referring to, on the United Nations human development index, Canada is rated sixth. When you apply the same indices to indigenous peoples, we're 63rd. That's what needs to be addressed.

More and more Canadians are saying that it is not right, and we have to make the investments in education and training. Dealing with 130 boil-water advisories, potable water, and overcrowded housing—all those negative stats—are what that gap represents, and people are getting it. That's what we have to work on collectively together.

Mr. Chairman, that's my Indian Studies 101. That's my misconceptions training or whatever. There is a lot more we could have gone into, but that's where I want to leave it right now, and there might be questions or comments from around the table.

[Chris Bloomer, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank the standing committee for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association and to provide the submission and speak today with respect to the upcoming budget.

I will summarize our submission comments with respect to Canada's investment climate for major pipeline development, the NEB processes, and NEB modernization.

CEPA represents Canada's 12 major mainline transmission pipeline companies, which operate approximately 117,000 kilometres of pipeline in Canada, moving annually approximately 1.2 billion barrels of oil and almost three trillion cubic feet of gas.

For more than 60 years, our pipelines have operated across the country, delivering energy safely, reliably, and efficiently. Over the past decade, CEPA members have had a 99.999%—almost 100%—safe delivery record. In 2015 there was a 100% safety record, with zero incidents along the mainline transmission system.

Our industry is undoubtedly a pillar of the Canadian economy, but recently we have seen difficult challenges. The collapse in the price of oil has resulted in delayed or cancelled energy projects and enormous job losses. In 2015 alone, over 100,000 direct and indirect jobs have been lost, and more are expected.

The situation is made much worse by our dependence on the United States as our only major customer from an exporting perspective. This forces us to sell our oil at a severely discounted price because of the lack of pipeline infrastructure to access global markets, and this results in billions of dollars of lost revenue for Canada.

CEPA members have over $68 billion of proposed investments in pipeline projects forecast over the next five years, projects that will open new markets and provide greater access to existing markets. All of these projects will be built with private capital. To build these important projects, we need to have a competitive investment climate. Companies will choose to invest their capital in other jurisdictions if they see the Canadian regulatory and fiscal system imposing process uncertainty, additional risks, costs, and delays that are not inherent to more competitive jurisdictions.

We recognize that the responsibility to create investment confidence comes hand in hand with building public confidence. To build public trust and confidence, we believe that decisions on whether new pipelines will be built must be placed and based on predictable and rigorous quasi-judicial processes based on evidence, science and fact, and appropriate consultation.

Unfortunately, the recent government announcements that extended the review of two proposed pipeline projects, together with the requirement of additional reports and processes at the back end of an extensive NEB process, are leading to increased ambiguity, delays, duplication of work, and growing potential politicization. Building public confidence requires industry, regulators, and governments to work together.

To that end, CEPA recommends the following:

We need to avoid politicizing the NEB. We are concerned with the potential politicization of the review process and believe that an evidence-based process serves better than a cabinet decision for Canada, which may be based on politics.

The National Energy Board was established in 1959 to depoliticize energy infrastructure decisions. More recently, we find ourselves in a similar situation. The legislative changes brought about by Bill C-38 in 2012 changed the role of the NEB from making a decision to making a recommendation to cabinet, leaving cabinet with the final decision. The change has now led to politicization of the decision-making process.

CEPA recommends that this 2012 amendment be reversed, restoring balance and decision-making towards the NEB, a quasi-judicial regulator whose decisions are based on science, fact, and evidence, rather than with cabinet.

On modernizing the NEB, the government has also committed to moving forward with that; however, we need to recognize that not everything is broken. Ensuring the board composition reflects regional views and has sufficient expertise is a good step, particularly greater indigenous representation. Taking a look at governance and the practices and overhauling the information management systems should be part of modernization.

The NEB's role in regulating existing operations spans the life cycle of a pipeline from design approval to construction, operation, and ultimately abandonment. It has done this for 60 years, mostly quietly.

Continuous improvement is always welcome, but we do this at the same time as recognizing that the NEB is recognized globally as a leader in life-cycle pipeline regulation.

As we modernize the NEB, we believe that public confidence can be improved by getting the right balance, building on what works well, improving what doesn't, and providing the regulator with the tools and resources for oversight through the entire life cycle of pipelines.

CEPA believes that a strong, credible regulator needs to be well resourced to provide the tools it needs to fulfill its mandate. This was recently confirmed by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's report. To better address these issues, CEPA recommends that the Treasury Board grant the NEB greater flexibility with the cost recovery model, allowing the NEB to better attract and retain highly skilled employees and to continue to fulfill its strategic priorities.

In summary, by improving public confidence and trust we're better able to make progress on necessary pipeline approvals and infrastructure development.

Thank you for the opportunity.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking on the federal budget today. I will be splitting my time with the member for Etobicoke North.

This budget has no real plan for jobs or growth. It gives the most to people who need it the least, and it keeps Canada in a deficit situation.

The Prime Minister's claim of a balanced budget is about as credible as George W. Bush's claim, in 2003, when he declared “mission accomplished” on the Iraq war. History proved the president wrong; the U.S. remained in Iraq for another seven years.

I think history will prove that this Prime Minister is wrong to declare victory on deficits. It is a cautionary tale about premature declarations of victory. This lesson is lost on the Conservative government. Instead of learning from history, the Conservatives are using this budget to declare mission accomplished in a fiscal year that will not even end until March 31, 2016.

The budget shows that after seven consecutive deficits, the federal Conservatives have yet to balance the budget. Canada has not been in a recession since May 2009. In fact, the Conservatives have been breaking the principle of their proposed balanced budget legislation since then.

Now the Conservatives have fabricated an illusory surplus on the eve of an election. How did they do that? First, they cut the contingency reserve. That is right. In the past, they kept intact the contingency reserve put in place by finance minister Paul Martin. If the Conservatives had actually done that this year, the budget would have shown that the Conservatives would be in deficit until at least 2017.

Slashing the rainy day reserve is just plain reckless. Last year, then-finance minister Jim Flaherty agreed. He said it would be “imprudent” to cut the contingency reserve. Earlier this year, the then-employment minister, now the defence minister, promised that the government would not touch the contingency fund. He said, “We won't be using a contingency fund”, to balance the budget. “A contingency fund is there for unforeseen circumstances, like natural disasters”.

This finance minister and the Prime Minister did not listen to either. Instead, he has recklessly cut the contingency reserve, leaving the government with no room for any unforeseen events.

The finance minister's reckless streak does not end there. His budget also depends on a 50% increase in oil prices. The Bank of Canada knows better than to build its forecasts around the hope that oil prices are going to go up in the mid-term. The Conservatives should be similarly cautious. It is reckless to build a budget around rosy assumptions.

The cut to the contingency reserve, in fact, is not the only item in this budget that is larger than the illusory surplus. There is also the one-time asset sale of GM shares, a $2.2 billion sale of GM shares that is actually bigger than this illusory surplus.

That confirms the reason the finance minister sat on his hands and delayed the budget until April, after the fiscal year had already begun.

Since 2010, job growth in Canada has been stagnant, and with the fall of oil prices, Canadians have been losing their jobs. The Bank of Canada has called the economy in 2015 “atrocious”. The Governor of the Bank of Canada actually took action in January. He stepped in with a historic interest rate cut to strengthen the economy. Meanwhile, the finance minister was nowhere to be found. He went into hiding, avoiding questions in Parliament for months. Now we know the real reason he did this. The finance minister was putting politics ahead of the economy and the Conservatives' political fortunes ahead of the Canadian priority of having a real plan, in a timely manner, to create jobs and growth for Canadians who need them.

He delayed the budget so that the sale of GM shares would count toward this fiscal year instead of last. That is not a plan. That is a gimmick. It is not just unsustainable, it is pathetic. It is playing politics with the livelihoods of Canadians.

The Canadian economy desperately needs a plan for jobs and growth. Instead, the Conservatives remain committed to their fiscally irresponsible plan for income splitting and the doubling of the TFSA contribution limit. They spent the surplus even before it arrived, and they are spending it on those who need the help the least.

Neither income splitting nor the increase to the TFSA limit would do anything for job creation. Neither of these measures would create the jobs and growth Canadians need or help young Canadians find work. Both of these measures would skew benefits toward the rich, doing little for the middle class and those Canadians working hard to join the middle class.

Doubling the TFSA limit would be particularly reckless, because the cost of the measure would ramp up dramatically over time and would gut the capacity of future governments by tens of billions of dollars every year. According to the PBO, a third of that cost would be borne by provincial governments, and because TFSAs would not count toward income-tested benefits, it would also result, perversely, in billions of dollars each year in additional old age security payments for wealthier seniors.

At some level, the Minister of Finance seems to understand that doubling the TFSA would create a problem for the next generation. When asked about that problem, he acknowledged that there would be a problem and said “why don't we leave that to [the Prime Minister's] granddaughter to solve”.

Canadian parents believe in building a better country for our kids and our grandkids. We do not believe in burdening the next generation with today's tax breaks for the rich. We do not believe in gutting our social safety net to pay for those tax breaks.

The Conservatives do not get this. They have grown out of touch with the challenges faced by middle-class Canadian families. Instead of building for the future, the Conservatives have engineered, effectively, a reverse mortgage on Canada's fiscal house to help them pay for giveaways to the rich. Doubling the TFSA limit would dramatically reduce the government's capacity in the future to invest in what matters.

All of this is bad enough, but it was only three years ago, just shortly after the last election, that these same Conservatives falsely claimed that they had to raise the age of OAS from 65 to 67 because of financial pressures. They falsely claimed that the OAS program was not financially sustainable. They passed these measures in Bill C-38, the spring 2012 omnibus budget bill, which resulted in cutting OAS and GIS to Canada's most vulnerable seniors for two years.

When fully implemented, Bill C-38's cuts to OAS and GIS will take $32,000 away from each of Canada's poorest and most vulnerable seniors. The Conservatives will be taking that money from low-income seniors at precisely the time when doubling the TFSA limit will start to get really expensive for the government and when the extra OAS payments for wealthier Canadians kick in.

The Conservatives are playing anti-Robin Hood. There is an adage that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Under this Conservative budget, it is now official government policy.

Raising the age of OAS and doubling the TFSA limit would take money away from the poorest, most vulnerable seniors and would give it to the rich. It would give that money to the select few who have an extra $10,000 burning a hole in their pockets every year. We need to keep in mind that some families are wealthy enough that there would in fact be two adults who could each contribute, so that is $20,000. I do not know a lot of families like that in Kings—Hants. People are working hard. They are struggling. Middle-class families are barely getting by.

The Conservative decision to take from the poor and give to the rich is unfair and un-Canadian. It is another example of how out of touch with the priorities of Canadians and the challenges of middle-class families the Conservatives have become.

The budget has no plan for jobs and growth. It would do next to nothing to help Canada's struggling middle class. It would do the most for the people who need it the least, the rich, and it would keep Canada in deficit.

A Liberal government will have a real plan for jobs and growth and support for Canada's middle class, and we will balance the books.

[Josée Touchette, Chief Operating Officer, National Energy Board]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We weren't aware that we could be asked questions beyond the scope of the bill, but that being said, we are here to answer your questions and we'll be happy to do so.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Josée Touchette, and I am the chief operating officer for the National Energy Board, or NEB. It's a great honour for me to appear today before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources about the proposed Pipeline Safety Act, Bill C-46.

I bring to the board over 25 years of experience in the public service, over half of which was in senior executive positions, including at Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Justice.

Allow me now to introduce my colleagues.

I am joined today by Dr. Robert Steedman, our chief environment officer. Dr. Steedman has been with the board for over 10 years. He holds degrees in environmental sciences from the University of Toronto, Oregon State University, and the University of Calgary.

I am also joined by Mr. Jonathan Timlin, our director of regulatory approaches. Before he moved to Calgary three years ago to work for the NEB, Mr. Timlin worked in Ottawa as a senior policy adviser with both Transport Canada and the Major Projects Management Office. He also previously worked in the electricity industry.

I'd like to begin by telling you about the board's role to provide a bit of context for our discussions later.

The NEB is a quasi-judicial independent agency created by Parliament in 1959 to regulate pipelines and energy development in the public interest. While the NEB functions at arm's length from government, it is accountable to Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources. Our role is to implement—not set—policies affirmed by federal legislation. The safety of Canadians is a top priority for the NEB.

However, many Canadians don't understand this aspect of our business or how we concern ourselves with it at all.

Today I will provide some insight into how the NEB operates, including an overview, our legislated mandate, changes to the legislative framework, the new public environment, life-cycle regulation, and current safety measures. I will also give you some context on the challenges we face and the three strategic priorities that we are focusing on in response to those challenges.

The National Energy Board is an expert tribunal, currently comprised of six permanent and seven temporary board members, and supported by a staff of highly skilled engineers, environmental specialists, auditors, inspectors, lawyers and engagement specialists, among others. We are very proud of the work that we do at the NEB—whether it's managing complex public hearings, assessing environmental impacts and pipeline integrity, carrying out pipeline inspections and audits, or the myriad of other tasks that we perform daily to ensure that Canada's energy infrastructure is safe and reliable.

Let me turn to our legislative framework.

Our mandate is set out in several pieces of legislation, including the National Energy Board Act, the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2012. I will discuss each of these in turn.

The National Energy Board Act sets out the NEB's regulatory responsibilities regarding, first, the construction, operation, and abandonment of pipelines that cross international borders or provincial boundaries, as well as the associated pipeline tolls and tariffs; second, the construction and operation of international power lines and designated interprovincial power lines; and third, the import of natural gas and exports of crude oil, natural gas liquids, natural gas, refined petroleum products, and electricity. The board also monitors aspects of energy supply, demand, production, development, and trade that fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government under the NEB Act.

The Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act and certain provisions of the Canada Petroleum Resources Act set out the NEB's regulatory responsibilities for oil and gas exploration and activities on frontier lands not otherwise regulated under joint federal-provincial accords, such as, for example, Nunavut, the Arctic offshore, Hudson Bay, the west coast offshore, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, a portion of the Bay of Fundy, and onshore Sable Island.

Finally, both the NEB Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, provide the NEB with a mandate to consider potential environmental effects and conduct environmental assessments when making regulatory decisions and recommendations.

Environmental aspects have been considered in board decisions under the NEB Act since the early 1970s.

We cannot regulate outside the scope of the acts that govern us. There is a broad network of regulatory jurisdictions across Canada that share responsibility for regulating oil and gas production, energy infrastructure and the environment.

For example, the NEB Act does not provide authority to regulate the production of oil or gas. That responsibility falls to the provinces or their agencies.

I wish to underscore that this legislative mandate is given to us by Parliament. Our role is to implement—not set—policies affirmed by federal legislation.

Let me turn to some of the legislative changes that we've had recently.

In 2012, Parliament passed the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, also referred to as Bill C-38, which included some of the most significant changes to the NEB Act since its implementation in 1959. Under this legislation, the NEB was given a 15-month maximum time limit for regulatory reviews. This provides the public with enhanced certainty around regulatory proceedings and NEB project reviews. The board was also given new compliance enforcement tools in the form of administrative monetary penalties, or AMPs. AMPs enable us to impose financial penalties on companies or individuals for non-compliances related to safety and the environment.

The Energy Safety and Security Act received royal assent in February. That new legislation amends the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act and provides the board with new tools for regulating northern oil and gas activities.

The key components of that act include the following elements: $1 billion absolute liability limit in the offshore and new obligations related to financial responsibility and financial resources; improved transparency through new board authority to hold public hearings, make information public, and provide participant funding in relation to projects under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act; 18-month time limit for NEB review of Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act applications; authority to establish an administrative monetary penalty regime under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act consistent with AMPs under the National Energy Board Act; and authority for cost recovery under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, which would move the board toward 100% recovery of all expenditures.

You now have before you Bill C-46, the pipeline safety act. We at the board welcome any measures that will strengthen our legislation and expand our tool kit to protect Canadians and the environment.

Should Bill C-46 receive royal assent, some of these measures include: an absolute liability regime that will cover all NEB-regulated pipelines and new financial resources requirements that will make sure companies have the ability to pay for spills; greater clarity regarding audits; enhanced enforcement powers to issue stop-work orders in the north; clarification of the board's jurisdiction over abandoned pipelines; board power to assume control of an abandoned pipeline if the company is not complying with board orders; and board powers to assume control of an incident where the governor in council determines that the company will not be able to pay or is not complying with board orders.

The NEB will work effectively and efficiently to implement any changes passed by Parliament in a timely manner.

These legislative changes come at a time when the Canadian energy industry is in the midst of a perfect storm. The conversation around energy development in Canada is working to reconcile safety and environmental protection, economic development, the rights of aboriginal people, and diverse local interests and needs. The resulting debate is complicated and provokes strong opinions.

And the board is in the eye of the storm. We are surrounded on all sides by opposing interests and are also increasingly subject to public scrutiny.

Until the summer of 2010, the board had maintained a fairly low public profile. Most Canadians had little or no idea who the NEB was. In 2006, when the board reviewed an application for the Trans Mountain Anchor Loop Project through Jasper National Park, there were eight interveners

In March 2010, the board released its Keystone XL decision to relatively little fanfare and only 29 interveners in the process.

Contrast that with today, when we have 400 interveners and over 1,300 commenters in the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project. And we currently have close to 2,300 applications to participate in the Energy East hearing.

The National Energy Board Act stipulates that we must hear from those who are directly affected by the granting or refusing of a project application. And the public appetite to participate in energy hearings is greater than ever. So we adjust and adapt.

We have to remain flexible, so that increasing numbers of interveners can participate in our hearings in a meaningful way. But this focus on mega-projects and public participation leaves the false impression that all the board does is review applications. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As we navigate this storm, we also have a critically important responsibility to provide regulatory oversight to about 73,000 kilometres of pipeline. That is nearly enough pipe to wrap around the earth two times.

The vast majority of those pipelines are buried below ground. Canadians safely live, work, and travel over them every day, and many never even realize that those pipelines are there, but this infrastructure is aging. The majority of these pipelines were put in the ground more than 30 years ago. That is why we put so much focus on safety: on damage prevention, compliance, and enforcement activities.

In 2014, the board conducted 353 compliance activities related to public safety, security and environmental protection. That is almost one compliance activity for every day of the calendar year. These compliance activities included 230 inspections of pipelines and 6 comprehensive audits.

In 2014, the board received nearly 600 applications for pipeline and power line-related facilities, tolls and tariffs, as well as import/export authorizations.

An important part of the board's job is to review and assess project applications, and, using the evidence that is placed before it during a hearing, to determine whether a proposed project is in the Canadian public interest. However, this is only one part of our role. Our regulatory oversight spans the entire life of the project—from design to abandonment. Oil and gas pipelines under NEB jurisdiction require the board's approval before being built.

In that context, companies must file detailed project applications. When an application arrives, we assess it for factors such as safety, environmental impacts, engineering integrity, security, emergency response capability, the rights of people affected, and if applicable, the reasonableness of the proposed tolls and tariffs. Public hearings are then held in many cases.

As I already said, the public appetite to participate in energy hearings is greater than ever. We also want to hear from individuals and groups that are directly affected by a project. If a project is approved, the board sends inspectors to the construction site to ensure that the company is building the project according to the board's conditions and commitments that the company made during the application process.

After construction is complete, the board uses tools such as audits, inspections, compliance meetings, and field exercises to hold companies accountable for safe operation that protects the public, workers and the environment.

Once a pipeline is no longer needed, the NEB requires a company to submit an application for abandonment. This starts an assessment process to determine the conditions that must be met in order for the project to be safely taken out of service.

Bill C-46 would enhance the board's authority in the area of abandonment, and we welcome that. In other words, the board regulates from start to finish and holds pipeline companies responsible for the full cycle of the pipelines they operate.

There is no doubt that all Canadians are concerned about the safety of energy infrastructure and the protection of the environment. The NEB is committed to taking all available actions to protect Canadians and the environment. Conducting unauthorized activity near pipelines or otherwise failing to comply with damage prevention requirements puts the safety of people and the environment at risk.

While the NEB requires the companies it regulates to strive for zero incidents, we recognize that damage prevention is a shared responsibility among all those who operate and work near pipelines. We require pipeline companies to ensure that people know how to safely conduct activities like excavation and construction near their pipelines. We also support and promote the use of one-call systems that promote effective and timely communication between someone planning an activity near a pipeline and the pipeline company.

In addition to our damage prevention program, we have a comprehensive compliance and enforcement program to make sure companies are doing what is required. Each year the NEB conducts targeted compliance verification activities, including six comprehensive audits and at least 150 inspections of regulated companies. This is in addition to the 100-plus technical meetings and exercises conducted on an annual basis.

These tools have been effective in allowing the board to proactively detect and correct instances of non-compliance before they become issues. When companies follow our rules, which are designed to identify hazards and manage risks, pipelines are a safe and reliable way to move oil and gas.

The NEB has strict requirements companies must follow in order to operate their pipelines. These requirements touch on everything from the type of materials used to build a pipeline, to the steps that should be taken to protect people and the environment. Make no mistake—should companies fail to live up to their commitments around safety and environmental protection, the NEB does not hesitate to take strong enforcement action.

We will take every measure to protect people and the environment. We have powerful tools to keep companies on track and prevent incidents which we will use without hesitation. This could include issuing cash fines called administrative monetary penalties, lowering the amount of product a company is allowed to move through their pipeline, and shutting down a pipeline completely if necessary.

In 2012 the board took the following enforcement actions: 302 notices of non-compliance and assurances of voluntary compliance, 3 inspection officer orders, 5 safety orders, and 6 administrative monetary penalties.

While our focus is on preventing accidents from happening in the first place, should an incident occur, the NEB has an emergency management program in place and is ready to respond to an emergency situation at all times. We have working agreements with other government departments and agencies in order to coordinate responses and communicate effectively in times of crisis.

In addition, companies are required to consult with municipalities, first responders and other agencies in the development of their emergency management program. These programs must be put in place prior to operation of a pipeline and must continue throughout its life cycle.

In addition, companies are required to provide emergency management information to persons associated with emergency response, and to develop continuing education and liaison programs for relevant agencies and the public adjacent to the pipeline.

As you can see, there is a significant amount of work that is being done by our staff every day to strengthen all aspects of our pipeline oversight, whether it is through the rigorous review and testing of pipeline applications, compliance and enforcement, or developing and implementing regulatory improvements.

But as technology and the public interest evolve, so to have the NEB's regulations and the expectations of our regulated companies. Management systems in particular are critical to continual improvement in pipeline safety. At their very essence, management systems document how people are to carry out the responsibilities of their position.

In 2013, we amended the National Energy Board Onshore Pipeline Regulations to clarify management systems requirements for the purpose of protecting the public, workers and the environment. The NEB expects companies to have management systems in place for the key program areas for which companies are responsible, those being: safety, pipeline integrity, security, emergency management and environmental protection.

Amendments included a requirement for companies to have a process for internal reporting of hazards, near misses and incidents. They also included new provisions holding a company's senior leadership accountable for its management system, safety culture and the achievement of outcomes related to safety and environmental protection. One thing that has remained constant is our commitment to safety. Safety continues to be our number one priority.

This brings me to the three strategic priorities we have identified to help guide our actions moving forward. First, we are going to take action on safety. We will focus our efforts and resources on developing, refining, and communicating our actions on safety and environmental protection. Using data and trend analysis, we will continue to focus, not just on preventing incidents, but on preventing industry cultures that make incidents more likely to occur. In doing this, we will demonstrate to Canadians how we hold the companies accountable, and exactly what we are holding them accountable for.

We are leaders in regulatory excellence. We are continually improving as a regulator, by reviewing and evaluating our processes. We are committed to act and to be seen as a ''best-in-class'' regulator—and we will demonstrate this through benchmarking and performance measurement. This will also help demonstrate to Canadians that our programs are focused on the right things and achieving the right results.

Finally, we are going to engage Canadians. Our engagement with Canadians must move beyond our application processes. This means broad engagement across the whole of Canada, including a responsive focus on regional issues. It also means more information, readily accessible by any stakeholder who wants it. We feel that by being open and transparent about the work we do, we will earn Canadians' trust that we are, in fact, doing the right things on their behalf.

Another example of how we are starting to act on our strategic priorities is by directly engaging Canadians from coast to coast to coast on safety and environmental issues, including on energy infrastructure of interest to local communities. In January, our chair, Peter Watson, began an engagement initiative, setting out to listen to Canadians’ views of pipeline safety and, if necessary, adjust the NEB's practices and programs.

At the beginning of June, we will also host a pipeline safety forum in Calgary to address specific issues to improve the safety of regulated facilities. The goals of the forum will be to have an open exchange of information on technical pipeline issues, increased understanding of stakeholder concerns, and opportunities for both industry and regulators to improve safety outcomes to better protect people, property, and the environment.

The information collected from the engagement initiative and from the forum will be rolled up in a report to be released later in 2015.

Thank you once again for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today about the important work of the NEB. I provided an overview of the NEB and our legislated mandate. I highlighted recent changes to our legislation, as well as changes that are proposed.

Our long-term commitment requires that we continually review and improve the ways in which we do business. We welcome any measures that will strengthen our legislation and expand our tool kit to protect Canadians and the environment.

Should the bill receive royal assent, we will work hard to implement any changes in a timely manner.

We're happy to address any questions you may have. Merci.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeads

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to once again speak about the environment.

I am very pleased to support the motion that was moved by my colleague from Halifax, the NDP environment critic. She puts her heart and soul into protecting our environment. Again yesterday, she wanted to propose an emergency debate on the excessive melting of Arctic ice. The ice in the Arctic is melting very rapidly because of climate change. Unfortunately, the Conservatives denied the request for this debate. The member continues to speak out against a number of measures that affect the environment, measures passed by the Conservatives that undermine our environment, whether it be the elimination of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy or the gutting of all or almost all of our environmental protections. There is 1% left. The Conservatives did away with environmental assessments so that a number of projects could move forward without public consultation or oversight.

The member is an outstanding environment critic, and my colleague from Drummond, who is the deputy critic, also does a wonderful job. He works hard to protect our environment for future generations and to show the world that sustainable development and the economy go hand in hand and that companies are prepared to get on board. All that is missing is some political leadership from the Conservatives.

Today we are debating the following motion:

That, in the opinion of the House, microbeads in consumer products entering the environment could have serious harmful effects, and therefore the government should take immediate measures to add microbeads to the list of toxic substances managed by the government under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Microbeads are toxic substances that are polluting our environment. They were patented to replace natural ingredients in beauty products, including face and body washes and toothpaste.

It is really troubling to think that these plastic substances are found in products that we put on our skin, in our toothpaste and in some other products. Multinational cosmetic companies should not play with our health, nor should they play with our environment. They should replace microbeads with the natural ingredients that were used prior to the 1990s.

Microbeads pose a real threat to the environment, and I will explain why during my speech, as many of my colleagues on all sides of the House have done. These microplastics are ingested by aquatic animals, including fish that are intended for human consumption. They therefore wind up in the food chain. They are toxic to our health, as well as to flora and fauna, but they allow companies to save a few pennies in the manufacturing of consumer products. That is completely unacceptable.

The worst part is that these tiny plastic fragments are not biodegradable. They accumulate and are transferred to animals that ingest them, and then we consume them.

Microbeads are the product of an industrial manufacturing philosophy that focuses only on profits, with no regard whatsoever for the environmental footprint. Cosmetic companies should take into account the impact that these ingredients have on the environment when they manufacture beauty products and other consumer products. Moreover, 21 countries around the world have already chosen to gradually eliminate microbeads from their products because they are aware of the negative effects those substances have. They need help from the government and legislation to ensure fair competition among all companies.

Many large corporations that care about the environment now employ life cycle analysis. What is life cycle analysis? It looks at the resources needed to manufacture a product and quantifies its potential impact on the environment. This standard is accepted by a vast network of companies and even has an ISO code. Companies that make cosmetics should use this analysis in manufacturing their products.

To encourage companies to adopt best practices, my colleague, the member for Halifax, suggested that this substance be included on the toxic substances list in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Why do we need to do that? We want Canadian companies to compete on a level playing field, as I said earlier. All companies, not just some of them, should follow the rules for respecting the environment. By banning microbeads in consumer products, we will ensure that all companies respect human health and the environment.

Passing this motion will enable companies to follow the example set by companies like The Body Shop that have pledged to eliminate microbeads from all of their products by the end of the year.

Also participating are Johnson & Johnson, Lush and Colgate-Palmolive. Microbeads are threatening the ecological health of the St. Lawrence. That is clear. Wastewater treatment plants cannot filter out microbeads because of their small size and buoyancy. This is affecting the river's plants and wildlife. Let us not forget that many sources of pollution are already affecting the health of the St. Lawrence. People in my riding, Beauharnois—Salaberry, are well aware of that.

Every year, the river becomes more acidic. Seaway navigation brings in dangerous invasive marine species, and fish fertility rates are being affected by pollution. Moreover, global warming is exacerbating the effects of pollution and acidification of the river, not to mention that water levels in the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes are falling year by year.

All these sources of pollution are affecting the flora and fauna of the St. Lawrence River and cost millions of dollars in water filtration and purification. We should not forget that the St. Lawrence River is a drinking water reservoir for an entire region of Canada. In Beauharnois, which is in my riding, an old cargo ship has been rusting since 2011 in Lac St-Louis, which feeds into the St. Lawrence. Our lax environmental legislation, which the government weakens with every budget, leave us powerless to do anything about these sources of pollution.

If these large vessels do not pose an immediate risk to the environment, they are left to deteriorate in public waters. However, their long-term presence has serious repercussions for the environment. There is also the economic impact of all this pollution. Sport fishermen are no longer catching trophy fish. This is the result of the gutting of environmental legislation by this Conservative government, which nonetheless calls itself the champion of sport fishing and hunting. However, the Conservatives do not see the contradiction.

In my region, ecotourism is one of the economic drivers threatened by pollution. Waterways are threatened by blue-green algae, another source of pollution created by products such as detergents and industrial soaps. Swimming, fishing and camping are all activities affected by the pollution of our environment.

Les Amis et riverains de la rivière Châteauguay, the Société du vieux canal de Beauharnois, and Les Amis de la réserve nationale de faune du Lac-Saint-François, which is in Dundee in my riding, are just a few of the organizations that work with the public to raise awareness about the importance of protecting our waters, lakes, rivers and oceans. They run water-based activities to ensure that our economy is based on more than just the fossil fuel industry.

A number of environmental organizations are also raising public awareness so that we can better protect our waters. These include SCABRIC, Ambioterra, Nostra-Terra, Crivert, the Comité ZIP du Haut-Saint-Laurent, the Comité de l'environnement — Ste-Martine, the Comité consultatif en développement durable et en environnement de la Ville de Salaberry-de-Valleyfield and the Comité Environnement de la MRC de Beauharnois—Salaberry, just to name a few. All of these local organizations are very aware of the fact that we need to protect our waters.

The motion moved to eliminate the use of microbeads is one of the measures put forward by the NDP to protect our waters. All of these sources of pollution show that things are not looking good for our waterways. As I was saying, in my riding, the Lac Saint-François National Wildlife Area has been fighting for years to preserve plants and wildlife that are unique to the region. The wildlife area is home to approximately 20 rare or threatened species, including the yellow flag; the osprey, which is a bird of prey; and the snapping turtle, a wonderful species of turtle.

What has the Conservative government done to protect our wildlife areas? It cut the budget of the Lac Saint-François National Wildlife Area, threatening its very survival. It also amended the legislation protecting our lakes and rivers with Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, mammoth bills that were introduced in 2012 and gutted protections for our waterways.

Châteauguay River protection groups strongly condemned the Conservatives' direct attacks on our environment. In addition to all of these efforts, many members banded together to introduce bills to protect the environment and our waterways.

I hope that all members of the House will vote in favour of this motion to ensure that we can make the consumer products that enter our homes safe and leave a healthy planet to future generations by developing a sustainable economy.

[Karen Proud, President, Consumer Health Products Canada]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and ladies and gentlemen of the committee.

My name is Karen Proud and I am the president of Consumer Health Products Canada. For those of you who don't know us, we're the trade association that represents the companies that make evidence-based over-the-counter medications and natural health products. These are products you find in medicine cabinets in every Canadian home. From sunscreens and vitamins to pain relievers and allergy medications, people use consumer health products to maintain their health and manage their minor ailments. This is a fundamental part of self-care that is vital to the health of Canadians and to the sustainability of our health care system.

I'm very pleased to be here today to speak in support of Bill S-2 and want to thank the committee for the opportunity.

In our opinion this bill is important in two ways. It provides express authority for departmental regulatory authorities to utilize an important tool in the drafting toolbox where currently there exists ambiguity. More importantly, it creates efficiencies and flexibilities within the regulatory process that are necessary to keep pace with the rapid rate of change in the regulatory environment.

The bill also contains a number of safeguards that have been put in place to ensure that the use of these new authorities is in line with current regulatory practices. While we certainly support safeguards related to ensuring accessibility and maintaining official languages, we would call into question the limitations that this bill imposes on regulatory authorities when it comes to referencing documents they produce internally.

As it stands today, this bill would not allow departments to use dynamic references for documents they produce themselves or produce with a person or body in the federal public administration. We think this is a bit short-sighted. Our members' products are currently regulated under the Food and Drugs Act. The act, which was amended in 2012 through the budget implementation bill, Bill C-38 and again this past fall with Bill C-17, gives the Minister of Health the authority to incorporate by reference any document, regardless of its source, either as it exists on a particular date or as amended from time to time. The Safe Food for Canadians Act, which passed in November 2012, has similar broad authorities for incorporation by reference.

It may surprise the committee to hear that we fully support providing regulatory authorities with these broad authorities under the proper circumstances. Under the Food and Drugs Act, our members rely on the fact that the department can incorporate by reference documents that it produces, which change over time. For example, the “Compendium of Monographs” is a document produced by Health Canada and incorporated by reference into the natural health products regulations. It allows new product applicants to reference the data contained in the monographs to support the safety and efficacy of their products rather than providing evidence for ingredients that are already known to be safe and efficacious when used under the conditions specified in the monographs. This significantly reduces the regulatory burden for industry and helps speed the evaluation of applications without compromising safety and efficacy requirements.

One of the biggest challenges with regulation is to maintain flexibility within the system to adapt to changing environments, so why tie the hands of regulators? Why not, instead, ensure that they have the tools they need and create a system of checks and balances to ensure that these tools are used responsibly? We recommend removing the limitations that are contained in Bill S-2 but ensuring that there is proper oversight so that these authorities, both in this bill and as they exist in other legislation, are used consistently and in the spirit in which they were intended by Parliament.

Specifically, we ask that the Treasury Board Secretariat be tasked to immediately develop guidance in the form of a cabinet directive that must be followed by departments when exercising the authority to incorporate by reference. We would also suggest that the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations broaden its mandate to look not only at regulatory instruments but at the departments' adherence to Treasury Board guidance. With these two things in place, we feel departments will have access to an important regulatory tool with the proper oversight.

While I understand that the clause-by-clause review of this bill will take place immediately following this round of testimony, I do hope that you will consider our proposals. I look forward to any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Opposition Motion—Gros-Cacouna Oil Terminal

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

I would like to begin by commenting on what our esteemed Conservative Party colleague, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, said. Frankly, I do not think that he gets the NDP point of view at all.

He is trying to convince us that DFO is doing its job and being perfectly transparent about the situation. However, the recent ruling regarding the port of Cacouna gives us good reason to doubt that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is stepping up.

This is an excerpt from paragraph 106 of that ruling:

They completely hid the fact that nobody from TransCanada or DFO's science branch answered their perfectly legitimate questions about whether carrying out the work on the dates proposed by the proponent could cause a significant disturbance or have a significant impact on marine mammals, and if so, what additional mitigation measures would help to reduce the disturbance or limit the impact to acceptable levels.

That is from the court's ruling, and I put a lot more faith in that than in the Conservative government.

Let us go on to paragraph 108:

On the contrary:

...the evidence shows that Mr. de Lafontaine's letter does not constitute scientific advice from DFO's science branch; even the Attorney General of Canada said so;

Their own lawyers are telling us that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans did not do its job.

I hope the Conservatives will begin to understand that transparency is needed, because we cannot live with a government as secretive as this one. They would have us believe that they will do everything, that everything will be fine and that there is nothing to worry about. They will hide the project and perhaps reveal it one day, much like they did with the text of the European free trade agreement. They want us to wait months and months, while they try to hide everything that could be done, and once they have their talking points ready, they present us with a project as a done deal.

I am sorry, but the laws of Canada require the right of oversight. According to Fisheries and Oceans Canada criteria, we must proceed based on the precautionary principle. That is not the case here. Once again, the government is going ahead at all costs, regardless of the consequences.

I would like to come back to something that is put very well in the motion, and that is that the Port of Gros-Cacouna project must be rejected. This is clear when we look at the court ruling and what the experts have said. Those experts unfortunately do not work for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; the DFO experts were muzzled. Nevertheless, people find other ways to have their say.

I want to acknowledge the very fine work done by the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup and his commitment. He worked tirelessly for months to highlight the bill's shortcomings and to find out what the people in his region were thinking. Consulting Canadians is absolutely crucial. We need to take the time to ensure that projects comply with the rules. That is not the case here.

Let us look at some figures to understand the scope of this project. At this time, in eastern Canada, approximately 585 million barrels of petroleum products are transported by sea on the Atlantic Ocean every year. For the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the St. Lawrence estuary, it is about 178 million barrels a year, and those numbers are from 2011. The Port of Gros-Cacouna project could easily add another one million barrels a day.

What is more, another project is being proposed for the Belledune region, not far from my riding. In that case, we are talking about another 400 million barrels a day. The amount of oil that will transit through the Gulf of St. Lawrence is expected to triple in the next three years, but no real studies have been done to determine whether this can be done without harming the environment and the existing natural resources.

In my region, the two major industries are fishing and tourism.

By all accounts, if ever there is a spill involving all these millions of barrels of oil in my region, we can forget about developing our natural resources.

I would like the Conservatives to understand that oil is not the only natural resource. Back home, we depend on the forestry industry and the fishery. I would also like to point out that even the belugas are a natural resource. Indeed, thanks to them, the tourism industry generates roughly $160 million a year.

There are so many industries in the region that we must proceed with caution. I do not understand why the Conservatives fail to see that we must take this one step at a time and respect all the regions and all the industries.

People back home are very worried. They are talking about the oil that will be shipped by the seaway, which will jeopardize the fishery and tourism, and they are talking about the vast quantities of oil that will be shipped by railway. Unfortunately, the Conservatives do not want to invest in that railway, but that is another story.

If we talk about railways and rail safety, we should start by examining all exports flowing through eastern Canada, because the Conservatives want oil to flow through the Keystone XL pipeline.

The Keystone XL pipeline is a very important project that the Americans have very little appetite for, to the point that the U.S. president seems to want to block it. However, the energy east pipeline is even more important than Keystone XL. We must therefore take the time to get the facts right about all aspects of these projects. We should not accept the first proposed port, such as Cacouna. Why is an oil project of this magnitude not subject to a real study and real due diligence? That was not the case for the project proposed by the Conservatives, the project that TransCanada proposed. The time has come for the Conservatives to be more transparent.

The Conservatives say that we cannot debate today a project that has not been submitted to the National Energy Board. Quite frankly, they should perhaps equip themselves with better tools. Members will recall that, two years ago, with Bill C-38, the Conservatives thought it was a good idea to ignore many of the precautionary principles that apply to the fishing industry and the oil industry. We should have left the triggers in the law. Today, the Conservatives are saying that there was no trigger and the study was not carried out. Had Bill C-38 not changed environmental laws, I suspect that today there would have to be a study done by the appropriate bodies. Today, that is the responsibility of the National Energy Board. This is rather illogical given that this board is responsible for the smooth transportation of energy. On the one hand, it will promote energy transportation and, on the other, it is supposed to be our watchdog in that regard.

The Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board is very uncomfortable with this mandate, which consists of being both watchdog and proponent. It is very difficult to wear both hats at the same time.

I hope the Conservatives will take the opportunity to examine Canada's energy industry as a whole to consider new ways of investing in other types of energy. It is about time they invested in green energy. I would like this government to study that option. In my region, we have invested a great deal in wind energy. It is very cost-effective and very green. It is a sustainable and renewable form of energy that contributes very little to greenhouse gas emissions.

I hope the Conservative government will take note of today's motion, take a step back and take the time to reflect on the kind of Canada we all want. Its proposal is not consistent with the Canada I want to live in.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to acknowledge the work of my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway. It was very interesting watching him confront the current government with the very bad decisions it has made in recent years.

I am honoured to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.

Canada has a poor record on key files. We accumulated a $61-billion trade deficit in 2013. Canada has had a trade deficit in excess of $45 billion for five years in a row. Canadians' debt reached record levels in 2013. People owe $1.64 for every dollar of disposable income they earn in one year. We are facing some truly worrisome situations that must absolutely be addressed. However, we feel that what the current government calls an economic action plan does not tackle the major challenges that are going to catch up to us and hurt Canadians and the economy, if we do not do something about them immediately.

The NDP's position will be to oppose the bill at every stage because there is nothing in Bill C-31 that indicates that the Conservatives are actually addressing these real problems.

This bill has 360 pages and amends 60 laws. Once again, it is an omnibus bill. It brings back bad memories of Bill C-38 in 2012.

At the time, Le Devoir ran the following headline: “A mammoth bill to change the rules without debate—The 431-page bill amends more than 60 current laws”. It seems that we are living in groundhog year. Everyone knows the movie Groundhog Day. Under the current government, we have been living groundhog day since 2011.

I would like to take a few minutes to explain the implications of an omnibus bill to the people at home. It reduces how much time the opposition parties, and the official opposition party in particular, have to analyze the issues. We do not have enough time to address the flaws in the bill. For example, this bill does not propose anything for SMEs. There is nothing solid, as far as we can tell. The bill eliminates the job creation tax credit for small businesses at a time when the unemployment rate might be up to 14% for people 25 and younger in a number of regions. It is absurd. How can the government attack a program that received support from all the regional chambers of commerce in the country? It is unbelievable and unacceptable.

We also do not have enough time with these omnibus bills to address any abuses that are hidden in these hundreds of pages. For example, this bill raises a lot of concerns over privacy protection with respect to the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. This is an American tax law on foreign accounts. The government is trying to deal with this in an omnibus budget bill.

However, the sharing of Canadians' information between financial institutions and the Internal Revenue Agency under this agreement, FATCA, would invade the privacy of roughly 1 million American citizens. This is hidden somewhere in the hundreds of pages of yet another omnibus bill.

That is not insignificant. There is another difficult aspect that the people at home need to understand. It is not their cup of tea to try to understand how this works in Parliament in Ottawa. The fact that the government stuffs everything in there makes it hard for the committees to do a decent job. There are decisions involving veterans and the environment hidden among these hundreds of pages.

These are important decisions that should have been and should be dealt with in separate bills that would allow the various all-party committees to invite all kinds of experts to examine the government's decisions. We could then find some better solutions, if it turns out that these are very bad decisions, as often happens. The decisions can sometimes be excellent if there is good co-operation.

We cannot do this kind of work when every single time this government tables a budget in this House, we have to deal with hundreds of pages and dozens of amendments to our laws.

One example that hits close to home for my constituents is rail safety, which once again is in a budget bill. This is a very important issue for my constituents. In the past 30 or 40 years, there have been three major train derailments in downtown Montmagny alone. These are recent events in Quebec, and dozens of people burned alive after trains carrying explosive products derailed. This is a priority for us.

Now, cabinet decisions about changing the security standards for the transportation of dangerous goods will be kept secret. Cabinet decisions on this issue will remain secret. With these changes, the public will not be informed when the Conservatives weaken safety measures, and experts will not be able to advise the minister before the changes are implemented. There are clauses in this bill to allow that.

Where were the Conservatives last summer when we witnessed the worst rail tragedy in our country's history? How can the government then hide a few lines in an omnibus bill saying that from now on, cabinet decisions on rail safety will not be transparent and public? How can the government do such a thing? It is clear that it does not have even the slightest interest in public safety.

Temporary foreign workers are a more recent problem. The bill gives the Minister of Employment and Social Development the power to impose fines on employers who break the rules of the temporary foreign worker program. This program has been in complete chaos for the past three months as a result of the government's serious mismanagement. Recently, in Rivière-du-Loup, we had a visit from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Local television stations were there and recorded the whole thing. The minister promised that the moratorium would be lifted once the new procedures were put in place. The current moratorium is a cause of great concern for many small business owners who sometimes need to seek help from the temporary foreign worker program. As a result of the government's terrible mismanagement of this program, there is a moratorium in place. The abuses that led to this moratorium did not take place in Quebec City, Montmagny or Rivière-du-Loup, but elsewhere in the country.

It is now June 12. The minister obviously did not keep the formal commitment that he made in Rivière-du-Loup when he said that this problem would be resolved when the new procedures were implemented during the first week of June. The summer season, tourist season, is now upon us, and restaurants will have difficulty finding staff. They are wondering how they will find people to clean, wait tables and do dishes. We still have not received an answer.

It seems that the only solution the Conservatives are putting forward for the moment to improve the state of this program is a blacklist of employers who abuse the program. Believe it or not, there are only four companies on that list and they were all added since April 2014. They were added in a panic when the administrative nightmare began, as though the Conservatives were trying to save face at the last minute. It is unbelievable.

What intelligent and constructive measures could the Conservatives have included in this budget? They could have done away with the cuts to tax credits for credit union and labour-sponsored funds. These are extremely useful tools for the economic development of our regions. The Conservatives are attacking our regions with these cuts. They could have simplified the process whereby rural communities request and receive funding for infrastructure projects. Municipal officials have been waiting for nearly two years now to find out what the terms and conditions are for receiving funding under the new building Canada fund. The government announced $14 billion two years ago, but municipal officials still do not know what it takes to receive funding for their municipalities. They do not know anything about the documentation, the terms or the standards. It has been nearly two years. This is an absolute farce. These issues should have been resolved immediately after the budget was tabled. The list goes on and on.

The NDP will not support this budget because it does not address the real problems and it contains no real solutions.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you to my colleagues as well.

Under Bill C-38, passed in 2012, our government included measures to transform the economic immigration programs that we have into a just-in-time system that will recruit people with the right skills to meet Canada's labour market needs today and into the future, fast-track their immigration, and get them working in a period of months, not years.

This is what's best for our economy. It's certainly what's best for newcomers, who will see their economic outcomes improve as a result. They already have improved, as we have reduced backlogs and made processing faster in preparation for this new system. Our government is committed to building a fast and flexible economic immigration system focusing on finding people who have the skills and experience required to meet Canada' s economic needs. The federal skilled worker program backlog was an issue in the past, but because of our government's action, the backlog will be eliminated this year.

We put a pause on the program and are returning up to $130 million in fees paid by certain federal skilled worker applicants who applied before February 27, 2008. The statutory funding decrease that you see in the main estimates this fiscal year relates to a longer than anticipated time horizon to return the fees paid by applicants to the FSW program, but they will be returned. My department has reallocated this funding to future fiscal years to address the anticipated refund requests in those years.

Eliminating this application backlog allows us to focus on new applicants with the skills and talents that our economy needs now. It also sets the stage for the launch this coming January of express entry, our government's next-generation approach to economic immigration, which will completely change the way we manage and process applications in our existing economic immigration programs.

Mr. Chair, let me be clear: Canada's doors are open to high-skilled workers. They have a pathway to permanent residency in this country. Investors can come to Canada under the Canadian Experience Class, under the Federal Skilled Worker Program, and under the Provincial Nominee Program. And the process is even faster for these investors because they have these programs available to them, as well as those offered by Quebec.

And as of January 1, 2015, applicants under these programs will have their application processed in six months or less under express entry. Express entry will be a faster, more effective, more efficient and more proactive process that will select immigrants based on the skills and attributes that Canada needs, and based on criteria that anticipate immigrants' economic success once they arrive.

Once it is launched, we expect to see a number of improvements to Canada's economic immigration system that will benefit our economy, our prosperity and labour market. Which, as you know, is a top priority for our government.

For example, the skilled newcomers that our economy needs will arrive here in months, rather than years.

In addition, by requiring candidates to first receive an invitation to apply before submitting an immigration application, we will prevent crippling backlogs from accumulating, like the one that plagued the Federal Skilled Worker Program for years.

We're getting faster, Mr. Chair, and we are identifying immigrants whose skills match Canada's needs and the needs of employers more closely than ever before.

CIC's main estimates also contain a decrease of nearly $30 million compared to the previous fiscal year for funding related to the implementation of biometric screening to reduce identity theft and fraud in our temporary resident visa program. Since biometric screening was successfully implemented at various missions over the last year, no additional investments are required this year. As this screening now forms part of our regular operations, ongoing funding is included in our operational budget.

All told, Mr. Chair, these and other items represent a net decrease of $270 million, with the largest single item relating to the passport revolving fund, which is part of our estimates for the first time this year. There's been a reduction of $270 million, though, across the board compared to the previous fiscal year, which brings my department's main estimates for 2014-15 to roughly $1.39 billion. Keep in mind that the revolving fund is reduced in response to higher revenue in the previous period. We had that unbelievable interest spike in demand for the 10-year e-passport last year, which partly explains the reductions in our main estimates this year.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm happy to answer any questions that you or members of the committee may have now or when we return.