Bill C-10 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2009

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and related fiscal measures

Part 1 implements income tax measures proposed in the January 27, 2009 Budget. In particular, it
(a) increases by 7.5% above their 2008 levels the basic personal amount and the upper limits for the two lowest personal income tax brackets, thereby also increasing the income levels at which income testing begins for the base benefit under the Canada Child Tax Credit and the National Child Benefit supplement;
(b) increases by $1,000 the amount on which the Age Credit is calculated;
(c) increases to $25,000 the maximum amount eligible for withdrawal under the Home Buyers’ Plan;
(d) introduces amendments to the rules related to Registered Retirement Savings Plans and Registered Retirement Income Funds to allow for recognition of losses in accounts between the time of the annuitant’s death and final distribution of property from the account;
(e) repeals the interest deductibility constraints in section 18.2 of the Income Tax Act;
(f) extends the mineral exploration tax credit for one year;
(g) increases to $500,000 the annual amount of active business income eligible for the 11% small business income tax rate and makes related amendments;
(h) clarifies rules relating to timing of acquisition of control of a corporation; and
(i) creates cost savings through electronic filing of tax information.
In addition, Part 1 implements income tax measures that were referenced in the January 27, 2009 Budget and that were originally proposed in the February 26, 2008 Budget but not included in the Budget Implementation Act, 2008. In particular, it
(a) clarifies the application of the excess corporate holdings rules for private foundations;
(b) increases the amount that corporations will be able to pay as “eligible dividends”;
(c) enacts several regulatory amendments that complement and complete measures enacted in the Budget Implementation Act, 2008;
(d) introduces minor adjustments to the Tax-Free Savings Account rules and the scientific research and experimental development investment tax credit rules included in the Budget Implementation Act, 2008;
(e) implements rules in respect of donations of medicines; and
(f) reduces the paper burden on businesses by allowing a larger number of government entities to share Business Number-related information in connection with government programs and services.
Part 1 also implements other income tax measures referred to in the January 27, 2009 Budget that either were themselves previously announced or flow directly from previously announced measures. In particular, it
(a) implements technical changes relating to specified investment flow-through trusts and partnerships and new tax rules to facilitate the conversion of these entities into corporations;
(b) contains amendments to take into account financial institution accounting changes;
(c) extends the general treatment of capital gains and losses on an acquisition of control of a corporation to gains and losses that result from fluctuations in foreign exchange rates in respect of debt denominated in foreign currency;
(d) enhances the carry-forward for investment tax credits;
(e) implements amendments relating to the computation of income, gains and losses of a foreign affiliate;
(f) implements amendments to the functional currency tax reporting rules;
(g) implements minor tax amendments relating to interprovincial allocation of corporate taxable income, the Wage Earner Protection Program and the Canada-United States tax treaty’s rules for cross-border pensions;
(h) provides for an extension of time for income tax assessments that are consequential to provincial reassessments;
(i) ensures the appropriate application of the Income Tax Act’s trust rules to certain arrangements and institutions under Quebec civil law;
(j) enacts regulatory amendments relating to prescribed amounts for automobile expenses and benefits, eligible medical expenses, and the tax treatment of foreign affiliate active business income earned in a jurisdiction with which Canada has concluded a tax information exchange agreement;
(k) introduces rules to reduce the required minimum amount that must be withdrawn from a Registered Retirement Income Fund or from a variable benefit money purchase pension plan by 25% for 2008, and allows related re-contributions;
(l) extends the deadline for Registered Disability Savings Plan contributions; and
(m) modifies the provisions relating to amateur athletic trusts.
Part 2 amends the Excise Act, 2001 and the Excise Tax Act to implement measures to reduce the paper burden on businesses by allowing a larger number of government entities to share Business Number-related information in connection with government programs and services.
Part 3 amends the Customs Tariff to implement measures announced in the January 27, 2009 Budget to
(a) reduce Most-Favoured-Nation rates of duty and, if applicable, rates of duty under other tariff treatments on a number of tariff items relating to machinery and equipment imported on or after January 28, 2009;
(b) divide tariff item 9801.10.00 into two separate tariff items pertaining to conveyances and containers, respectively, and make two technical corrections, effective January 28, 2009; and
(c) modify the tariff treatment of milk protein substances, effective September 8, 2008.
Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act until September 11, 2010 to extend regular benefit entitlements by five weeks. It also provides that a pilot project ceases to have effect. In addition, it amends that Act to provide that the cost of benefit enhancement measures under that Act, provided for in the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009, are not to be charged to the Employment Insurance Account. Finally, it sets the premium rate provided for under that Act for the years 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2010.
Division 1 of Part 5 amends the Financial Administration Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to take, subject to certain conditions, a number of measures intended to promote the stability or maintain the efficiency of the financial system, including financial markets, in Canada.
Division 2 of Part 5 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to provide the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation with greater flexibility to enhance its ability to safeguard financial stability in Canada. The Division also adds Tax-Free Saving Accounts as a distinct category for the purposes of deposit insurance. It also makes consequential amendments to other acts.
Division 3 of Part 5 amends the Export Development Act to, among other things, expand the Export Development Corporation’s mandate to include the support and development of domestic trade and business opportunities for a period of two years. The period may be extended by the Governor in Council. Division 3 also increases the Corporation’s authorized capital.
Division 4 of Part 5 amends the Business Development Bank of Canada Act to increase the maximum amount of the paid-in capital of the Business Development Bank of Canada.
Division 5 of Part 5 amends the Canada Small Business Financing Act to increase the maximum outstanding loan amount in relation to a borrower. It also increases individual lenders’ cap on claims. These amendments will apply to new loans made after March 31, 2009.
Division 6 of Part 5 amends a number of Acts governing federal financial institutions to improve access to credit and strengthen the financial system in Canada, including amendments that will
(a) provide new authority for further safeguards to promote the stability of the financial system;
(b) enhance consumer protection by establishing new measures to help consumers of financial products; and
(c) implement other technical measures to strengthen the financial sector framework in Canada.
Division 7 of Part 5 provides for payments to be made to provinces and territories, provides authority to the Minister of Finance to enter into agreements respecting securities regulation with provinces and territories and enacts the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office Act.
Part 6 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for various purposes, including infrastructure and housing.
Part 7 amends Part I of the Navigable Waters Protection Act to create a tiered approval process for works in order to streamline the approval process and to exclude certain classes of works and works on certain classes of navigable waters from the approval process. This Part further amends Part I of the Act to clarify the scope of the application of that Part to works owned or previously owned by the Crown, to provide for the application of the Act to bridges over the St. Lawrence River and to add certain regulation-making powers.
Part 7 also amends the Act to clarify the provisions related to obstacles and obstructions to navigation. The Act is also amended by adding administration and enforcement powers, consolidating all offence provisions, increasing fines and requiring a review of the Act within five years of the amendments coming into force.
Division 1 of Part 8 amends the Wage Earner Protection Program Act and the Wage Earner Protection Program Regulations to provide that unpaid wages for which an individual may receive payment under the Wage Earner Protection Program include unpaid severance pay and termination pay.
Division 2 of Part 8 amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to, among other things,
(a) require the Chief Actuary of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to report on financial assistance provided under that Act; and
(b) authorize the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to suspend or deny financial assistance to all those who are qualifying students in respect of a designated educational institution.
Division 2 of Part 8 also amends both the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act and the Canada Student Loans Act to, among other things,
(a) terminate all obligations of a borrower with respect to risk-shared loans and guaranteed loans if the borrower dies;
(b) authorize the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to require any person who has received financial assistance or a guaranteed student loan to provide that Minister with documents or information for the purpose of verifying compliance with those Acts; and
(c) authorize that Minister to terminate or deny financial assistance in certain circumstances.
Division 3 of Part 8 amends the Financial Administration Act to provide express authority for agent Crown corporations to lease their property, restrict the appointment of employees of a Crown corporation to its board of directors, require Crown corporations to hold annual public meetings, clarify Treasury Board’s duties to indemnify Crown corporation directors and officers, permit more flexibility in the frequency of special examinations of Crown corporations, and require the reports of special examinations to be submitted to the appropriate Minister and Treasury Board and made public. This Division also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 9 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to set out the amount of the fiscal equalization payments to the provinces for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2009 and amends the method by which fiscal equalization payments will be calculated for subsequent fiscal years. It also amends the method by which the Canada Health Transfer is calculated for each fiscal year in the period beginning on April 1, 2009 and ending on March 31, 2014.
Part 10 enacts the Expenditure Restraint Act. The purpose of that Act is to put in place a reasonable and an affordable approach to compensation across the federal public sector in support of responsible fiscal management in a difficult economic environment.
It sets out rules governing economic increases to the rates of pay of unionized and non-unionized employees for periods that begin during the period that begins on April 1, 2006 and ends on March 31, 2011. It also continues certain other terms and conditions at their current levels. It preserves the right of collective bargaining with regard to other matters and it does not affect the right to strike.
The Act does not preclude the continued development of workplace improvements by employers and employees’ bargaining agents through the National Joint Council or other bodies that they may agree on. It also permits bargaining agents and employers to agree to the amendment of certain terms and conditions of collective agreements or arbitral awards.
Part 11 enacts the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act and makes consequential amendments to other Acts. The purpose of the Act is to ensure that proactive measures are taken to provide employees in female predominant job groups with equitable compensation.
It requires public sector employers that have non-unionized employees to determine periodically whether any equitable compensation matters exist in the workplace and, if so, to prepare a plan to resolve them. With respect to public sector employers that have unionized employees, the employers and the bargaining agents are to resolve those matters through the collective bargaining process.
It sets out the procedure for informing employees as to whether an equitable compensation assessment was required to be conducted and, if so, how it was conducted, and how any equitable compensation matters were resolved. It also establishes a recourse process for employees if the Act is not complied with.
Finally, since the Act puts in place a comprehensive equitable compensation scheme for public sector employees, this Part amends the Canadian Human Rights Act so that the provisions of that Act dealing with gender-based wage discrimination no longer apply to public sector employers. It extends the mandate of the Public Service Labour Relations Board to allow it to hear equitable compensation complaints and to provide other services related to equitable compensation in the public sector.
Part 12 amends the Competition Act. The amendments include
(a) introducing a dual-track approach to agreements between competitors, with a limited criminal anti-cartel provision and a civil provision to address other agreements that substantially lessen or prevent competition;
(b) providing that bid-rigging includes agreements or arrangements to withdraw bids or tenders;
(c) repealing the provisions dealing with price discrimination and predatory pricing, replacing the criminal resale price maintenance provision with a new civil provision to address price maintenance practices that have an adverse effect on competition, and repealing all provisions dealing specifically with the airline industry;
(d) introducing an administrative monetary penalty for cases of abuse of dominant position, increasing the maximum amount of administrative monetary penalties for deceptive marketing cases, and increasing the maximum fines or terms of imprisonment, or both, for agreements or arrangements between competitors, bid-rigging, criminal false or misleading representations, deceptive telemarketing, deceptive notice of winning a prize, obstruction of Competition Bureau investigations and failure to comply with prohibition orders or production orders;
(e) clarifying that, in proceedings under section 52, 74.01 or 74.02, it is not necessary to establish that false or misleading representations are made to the public in Canada or are made in a place to which the public has access, and clarifying that the “general impression test” applies to all deceptive marketing practices in sections 74.01 and 74.02;
(f) providing that the court may make an order in respect of cases of false or misleading representations to require the person who engaged in the conduct to compensate persons affected by the conduct, and may issue an interim injunction to freeze assets if the Commissioner of Competition intends to ask for such a compensation order; and
(g) introducing a two-stage merger review process for notifiable transactions, increased merger pre-notification thresholds and a reduced merger review limitation period.
Part 13 amends the Investment Canada Act so that the review of an investment will be applied only to the more significant investments. It also amends the Act to allow more information to be made public. This Part also provides for the review of foreign investments in Canada that could threaten national security and allows the Governor in Council to take any measures that the Governor in Council considers advisable to protect national security, such as prohibiting a non-Canadian from implementing an investment.
Part 14 amends the Canada Transportation Act to provide the Governor in Council with flexibility to increase the foreign ownership limit from the existing levels to a maximum of 49%.
Part 15 amends the Air Canada Public Participation Act in relation to the mandatory provisions in the articles of Air Canada regarding constraints imposed on the issue, transfer and ownership of shares. It provides for the repeal of the provisions requiring that the articles of Air Canada contain provisions imposing limits on non-resident share ownership and the repeal of the provisions requiring that the articles of Air Canada contain provisions respecting the enforcement of these constraints.

[Armine Yalnizyan, Senior Economist, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is Canada's leading progressive think tank, supported by more than 10,000 individual and institutional members across the country, with offices in Ottawa, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Regina, and Halifax.

Thank you very much for inviting our views on Bill C-50.

No recession since the Second World War has destroyed as many jobs in the opening months of a downturn. The government was very quick to react with supports for the financial sector, but improvements to EI have been long overdue and woefully inadequate. This despite a clear action plan for EI reform tabled by this very committee on February 15, 2005, and later, in 2007, all-party agreement on two readings of Bill C-269, before the government of the day, this government, then decided to deny royal recommendation in November of 2007. So, long before the meltdown of global financial capital began last fall, we knew our system of unemployment insurance was not recession-ready.

Between October 2008 and last month, the labour market shed 483,000 full-time job opportunities. More than 1.5 million Canadians today are actively looking for paid work. More than half of them do not receive EI. That means three-quarters of a million Canadians are left twisting in the wind. Canadians have not been this exposed to the economic risks of joblessness since the 1940s, when we first put unemployment insurance into place.

Now, I’m not telling you anything new that you don’t know. I’m not telling you anything radical. For years, your very own committee has noted the need to improve access to the system by reducing and making more uniform the eligibility criteria based on hours; to improve the duration of benefits, which were precipitously cut back in the reforms of the early 1990s; and to improve the rate of income replacement, which is particularly disastrous for low-income workers.

Bill C-50 was this government’s response to these concerns. It limits itself solely to the issue of duration, and further limits the extension of benefits to a small subgroup of the unemployed. HRSDC gave testimony to the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance just a couple of weeks ago and stated that a third of those displaced since January 2009 could benefit from this legislation. That means two-thirds of those who have been displaced since January 2009 and who have exhausted their benefits—the majority of Canadians who are in that position—will not receive any help. Bill C-50 also ignores all of those who lost their jobs, who were the shock troops of the opening months of the recession.

So how many people are we talking about? Monthly unemployment figures by Statistics Canada showed that unemployment swelled by at least 200,000 people last fall and a further 300,000 people since January. Improvements to EI, need I say, are critical. Canada cannot have a full recovery if workers face rollbacks in wages, benefits, and pension provisions and the unemployed also cannot find new jobs at roughly comparable wages. Aggregate demand will just continue to fall.

The United States are 22 long months into recession, with no clear end in sight. We will have to wait an awfully long time to ride on their coattails. So diminishing purchasing power of Canadians is an issue this government, this committee, needs to deal with, because this is a very fragile recovery and this issue can no longer be ignored.

I will limit myself to comments about Bill C-50, though we understand that it only deals with one aspect of the improvements we are all seeking to the unemployment insurance system. Bill C-50 can be made more effective with three simple modifications that address three questions. When should the clock start ticking? Who should get help? How much help should they get?

First, the effective date for Bill C-50 should be changed to start at January 4, 2008, rather than January 4, 2009. Some may ask why reach so far back. It's simply because January 4, 2008, is exactly what the government's thinking was in Bill C-10, passed not very long ago, which included measures to extend benefits by five weeks for all those who had exhausted their benefits. Moving the trigger date to January 4, 2008, would extend the benefits provided in Bill C-50 to the same group as Bill C-10: everyone affected by the recession.

Second, Bill C-50 should drop the rule that excludes workers who may have been drawing up to 35 weeks of benefits in the last five years. As you have heard, it is nonsense to say that, in these types of economic times, some unemployed are more deserving of help than others.

The majority of people first affected by the downturn were in goods-producing industries. Such industries commonly retool, adjust inventory, experience slowdowns in demand or supply, which all can lead to temporary layoffs and shutdowns periodically. Workers in such industries have zero control over their hours of work. People who have been laid off on a regular basis in the previous five years may find themselves not being recalled at all. These people should not be excluded from what Bill C-50 offers. No such limitation was placed on Bill C-10.

Finally, how much help does Bill C-50 provide? Unlike Bill C-10, which provided an additional five weeks of benefits to all unemployed Canadians who had exhausted their benefits, Bill C-50 proposes this baroque set of eligibility criteria that are extraordinarily difficult to read through. Within the small group of unemployed who are the target of Bill C-50 , the bill further creates six different categories of winners, where the amount of help they'll get is based on how much they have contributed to the system in the past 15 years, up to a maximum of 20 weeks for a select few.

Extension of benefits should be uniform, as in Bill C-10, and Bill C-50 should offer a significant extension for all who need it. Does 20 additional weeks sound overly generous to you? Well, let's compare this to what happened just two weeks ago in the United States. The Associated Press reported: “Congress has added up to 53 extra weeks of benefits on top of the 26 typically provided by the states.“ And the House this week approved legislation that would add a further 13 weeks for high-unemployment states.

Let's be very clear. Without significant extension of benefits, you can be sure that a huge proportion of the cost is going to fall on provincial shoulders. Last summer, British Columbia's Premier Campbell suggested extending benefits to two years, and Saskatchewan's Premier Wall also stressed the need for extended benefits. These are not socialist politicians, but these premiers know very well that they are going to end up picking up the tab for the federal government's unwillingness to act.

Without significant changes to Bill C-50 this government risks being a spectator to what may be the most significant period of asset-stripping of the middle class in generations, exactly what unemployment insurance was designed to prevent.

Recovery or not, Canadians are coping with unbelievable economic stress. Your predecessors from decades ago created a system that improved life for Canadians in good times and bad. I urge you to consider today how you can take on that mantle.

Thank you.

Pay Equity

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my petitioners call upon the government to stop the wage roll-backs and restore pay equity for public service workers. Bill C-10, the Budget Implementation Act, empowers the government to roll back negotiated wages and arbitral awards retroactively as well as radically change the rules governing pay equity in the federal public sector. This infringes upon the rights of civil servants to freely and collectively bargain wage increases with their employers and adversely affects the rights of public sector workers, particularly women, to equal pay for work of equal value.

Bill C-10 would prevent civil servants from filing and adjudicating gender-based discrimination through the Canadian Human Rights Code and would trade away their human rights at the bargaining table. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the government of Canada to rescind the provisions of Bill C-10 that violate workers' rights to collective bargaining, including the arbitral awards of equal pay for work of equal value.

Workers' Rights

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce a petition calling for a stop to wage rollbacks and a restoration of pay equity to public service workers.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to support Motion No. 384 and rescind the provisions of Bill C-10 that violate workers' rights to collective bargaining, including arbitrary awards and equal pay for work of equal value.

Budget Implementation Act

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today calling for a stop to the wage rollbacks and a restoration of pay equity for public service workers.

The budget implementation bill empowers the government to roll back negotiated wages and arbitration awards retroactively and to radically change the rules governing pay equity in the federal public sector.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to support Motion No. 384 presented by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster and to rescind the provisions of Bill C-10 that violate workers' rights to collective bargaining, including the right to arbitration awards and the right to have equal pay for work of equal value.

Public Service

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, my petition is a call to stop the wage rollbacks and to support pay equity for public service workers. The Budget Implementation Act empowers the government to roll back negotiated wages and awards retroactively as well as radically change the rules governing pay equity in the federal public sector.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to support a motion by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster and rescind the provisions of Bill C-10 that violate workers' rights to collective bargaining, including arbitration awards and equal pay for work of equal value.

Collective Agreements and Pay Equity

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is signed by dozens from residents of Vancouver Island, Esquimalt, Victoria and Saanich calling on the government to support Motion No. 384, which rescinds the provisions in Bill C-10 that violate workers rights to collective bargaining, including arbitral awards and equal pay for work of equal value.

These hard-working civil servants are saying that the provisions of Bill C-10 attack public servants' right to strike and equal pay for work of equal value. They are asking Parliament to rescind them.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in March, I asked the Minister of Finance a question. I said at the time that the interest and fees that the major credit companies charged consumers, big businesses and small and medium-sized businesses had a devastating impact on consumers.

I posed a question to the Minister of Finance some time ago with respect to concerns that Canadians were increasingly bringing to bear on Parliament and parliamentarians, and certainly on our party, about rising credit card fees and rates, not just for consumers but also for merchants and for small businesses.

As the hon. minister knew at the time, he had undertaken to suggest that if we passed Bill C-10 there would be action. I took the minister at his word. It was 70 days before we received any type of response from the government. The response that we had was a first step. I am not sure if we could consider it a half-hearted step, but what is extremely important to all of us as members of Parliament is to ensure that we have a timely resolution to what is a growing concern for Canadians.

That growing concern can best be expressed by a simple fact that the interchange fee, that is the fee that is charged to the merchant for receiving a credit transaction, has been increasing sometimes to the tune of more than double.

The House will know that my work with small business, with small enterprise, particularly retail gasoline marketers, was really the beginning of the concern that was raised with me last year.

Both Visa and MasterCard constitute nearly 95% of all the transactions in this country, so the semblance of competition is certainly not there.

While there is evidence that parliamentarians are getting this, we have a joint committee of industry and the committee of finance together working on the issue of interchange fees and the complexities that it creates. The fact is that in the other place Liberals have been working very hard. The committee work is almost finished there.

This member of Parliament and my party have been very interested in ensuring that the government acts purposely and deliberately.

I know my good colleague and friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, will have obviously some comments in terms of defending, but I think we both have to recognize that more can and should be done.

We hope that it will note take more than nine or ten months to finally get the second tranche of action, particularly as it relates to areas where consumers are most affected, things such as dual cycle billing and opportunities for consumers so they can opt out when they find that their interest rates have been increased often without notice.

While it is important to increase the font size of the regulation that would provide larger and better information to consumers and the idea that, for instance, there is more competition, it is very difficult to compare apples with oranges.

I ask the hon. parliamentary secretary, when can he deliver to the House concrete action? Can we expect the next steps to take place as soon as possible and does the minister and his parliamentary secretary consider the issue of credit cards, its bearing on consumers and on merchants, unfinished business?

Marine Liability Act

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has asked an interesting question.

Penalties can be on the books, but the challenge is enforcement. I am still wondering where the enforcement aspect is in this legislation. Historically the government has not invested in the enforcement capabilities we need today to enforce the laws we already have. I am looking for the enforcement aspect of the bill, which is absolutely essential.

The member brought up the issue of the navigable waters act. The government added the navigable waters act to Bill C-10, the budget bill, an issue that had nothing to do with the budget at all. By putting this in the budget bill, the government actually compromised what it claims it wants to do, which is to have a system in place to protect our waters and to do proper environmental assessments of our waters.

As the member mentioned, waterways across our country are under threat. The changes the government has put in place to the navigable waters act are actually going to work counter to this legislation. I would like to see the government remove that completely from Bill C-10.

With respect to the last issue, oil dumping from ships is a huge problem. But the dumping that goes on with bilge cleaning and such is much greater than the large oil spills, and it has to be deal with.

Environmental Enforcement Act

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege to speak to Bill C-16. It is an issue close to my heart and the hearts of many Canadians.

The bill amends nine environmental bills, and it creates a new act. It builds on the work the Liberal Party did in 1995 on the environmental damages fund. I want to thank the Liberal critic for the hard work he has done in trying to move these issues forward in the House.

The march to extinction is something all of us are aware of. It receives short attention in the House, but we have never seen this rate of increase in the destruction and elimination of our species in the history of our planet. The cause of it is human activity. Seven billion people on our planet are having an indelible impression on our world. Some of it is good; some of it is bad. Between 8 million and 14 million species exist on our planet today, and the rate of extinction in those species is truly frightening.

This bill creates increased penalties for violators. It forces violators to not only pay fines but to also pay money to repair the damage they have done. It is a welcome change. We, in the Liberal Party, support the bill moving forward to committee to strengthen it and make it even better.

This bill is good but it flies in the face of actions by the government, which have been extraordinary. Many members on the other side do not know that the government has been removing critical funding to various species programs that have been established by some of the finest scientists in Environment Canada and NGOs across our country. The Conservative government has been eviscerating programs that are critical to the protection of habitat and species.

I will provide some hard facts and numbers. The national wildlife area protection program protects critical habitat. What did the Conservative government do? It carved off $2 million, a huge chunk of its funds.

The budget for the migratory bird program, which monitors the health of bird populations, was cut by 50%. This is at a time when the change in bird populations has been truly frightening. I am going to get to that later on. There has been a massive reduction in bird populations in Canada, and many of the birds that migrate from points south to the Arctic make a stopover on our territory. The government has been eviscerating programs necessary for monitoring their activities.

The Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network analyzes the health of ecosystems. It is incredibly important. The government cut an astonishing 80% of its funds, for heaven's sake. I ask that the environment minister put that money back for these programs. If the government cares about biodiversity in Canada and cares about our environment, I ask that it put the money back.

This happened in the face of the red list that was done by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. The IUCN is a body that started in 1943. It has over 11,000 scientists around the world, and it does the most comprehensive assessment of biodiversity on our planet. In fact, the IUCN started the World Wildlife Fund. It is the premier organization that interacts with and integrates environmental groups, NGOs, and government bodies all over the world.

The International Conservation Caucus Foundation was very happy to host Julia Marton-Lefèvre, who is the director general of the IUCN, earlier this week. She eloquently spoke to government members, government ministries and members of the ICCF, telling us about the catastrophe that has befallen the species of our planet. She is asking that Canada be a leader in this area.

The Liberal Party's former environment minister, who is here today, did an extraordinary job in his work internationally. He is a member of the ICCF, and he is making incredible contributions here in the House and internationally based on his extraordinary and unparalleled experience. The government would be wise to listen to the former minister of the environment in these areas. There are many things it can do.

I will outline some of the problems we have right now.

What is the unprecedented rate of increase in extinction that I mentioned? According to IUCN, 44,837 species have been assessed and 38% are threatened with extinction. There are 22% of all mammal species and 31% of all amphibians that are threatened with extinction. That is a very important group; I think this is the year of amphibians, if I am not mistaken.

Amphibians are very important because they are the proverbial canary in the mine shaft. They are amphibians in a mine shaft, if you will. They are so sensitive to our environment that when they go it is a harbinger of things to come. It is not good.

With respect to birds, 14% are threatened with extinction. Regarding warm water reef corals, the corals that build up reefs in warm waters, 27% are threatened with extinction. With respect to fish, 90% of the fish species we are harvesting right now are at the limit or beyond the limit of their carrying capacity. We are overfishing the earth's oceans.

What can be done? As I mentioned before, seven billion people on our planet are having an indelible effect. The IUCN and the WWF and others will tell us there is a basic principle we have to look at.

Integrated human activity and conservation can be done, but it requires an integrated approach. If we simply say we have to protect and conserve places without taking into consideration the needs of human populations, we do not preserve the areas we want to preserve. In fact, unless the areas generally have value to people, there is a much greater risk of those areas being destroyed.

The best bet is to ensure that those areas have value for people. Some areas have to be protected by not allowing any human activity. But most areas can be managed in a way that ensures the human environmental footprint and activities are minimal so there is a benefit to humans and a benefit to the areas that are important in terms of critical habitat.

CIDA has an enormous opportunity to do this. Personally, I have been to Africa 26 times. I have had a great opportunity to spend time at the KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Service in South Africa

I am bringing that up for a reason. Back in the 1890s, the KwaZulu-Natal province in South Africa had the second-largest land mammal in the world, the great white rhino. Sixty of these animals were situated in one small area, in Umfolozi reserve in South Africa. The South African government said it was the custodian of this extraordinary species for the world and it had to preserve the rhinos' critical habitat. The government did that.

The government also recognized that if it was going to expand the numbers, it would have to expand habitat. So, the KwaZulu-Natal Conservation Service has expanded the habitat, and it has created conservancies. There is a benefit for people, but there is also a way to generate funds that can be shared for people in primary health and education and infrastructure, particularly for rural populations. There is also money to create and protect habitats, do scientific assessments, pay for game guards and expand and buy new territory to protect more habitat. There are lessons there for all of us.

The result, if I can use the example of the white rhino, is that now there are more than 18,000 rhinos. The population went from 60 to 18,000 in less than a century. It was an extraordinary act. The principle I am driving at is that we can do this.

CIDA does not get this. I do not understand why. They can, and they should, have a department in CIDA that could actually integrate conservation, environmental protection and human development. They could fit wonderfully together. To look at them as two separate parts is illogical, unworkable and ineffective. To combine them both would be very effective.

The Prime Minister should call on the relevant cabinet ministers, those involved in the environment, health and international development and have a working group to integrate these actions. The silo does not work. And I am going to get to some of those other principles later on.

Alanna Mitchell was also part of the international conservation caucus. She was a Globe and Mail reporter, who was named by Reuters as the top environment reporter in the world. As a Canadian, this was something to behold.

She has written a book called Sea Sick, in which she eloquently describes the effect of humans on our oceans. She made a very poignant point: if ocean life dies, life on the land will die too.

The reasons for this are complex, but part of the reason is global warming. When the temperature in the ocean rises, there is acidification that causes a change in the pH level. This change affects the living creatures in the ocean, resulting in a massive die-off. This causes a feedback mechanism where the rising temperature of the ocean reduces the ability of the living creatures to absorb carbon dioxide. We get this terrible feedback loop that we do not want.

As I said, the former environment minister, the former leader of my party, has fought hard for Canada to take a leadership role. He set extraordinary benchmarks for the world to follow. The Conservative government has dropped the ball. It is looking at intensity targets. The government has no concept, no plan whatsoever to deal with the Copenhagen conference that is going to take place at the end of this year.

The world climate conference is going to be held in Geneva, on August 31 to September 3. Canada should play a prominent role at this conference. We should also be going there with an effective plan of action to deal with this issue. It is not good, it is not effective, and it is irresponsible for the government to simply put its head in the sand and say that others will deal with it. That is not good enough. The government's failure to develop an effective program would be a huge act of irresponsibility towards the citizens of our country. The government should be listening to members of the Liberal caucus and other political parties who have great ideas and can help make Canada a leader in this area.

I want to talk about carbon sinks. We have to look at carbon sinks as areas with value. Take a forest, for example. We cut down the trees and those trees are sold. But those carbon sinks have value now. A hectare of tropical jungle, for example, will take out about 200 tonnes of carbon every year. If a value is put on carbon, at say $10 a tonne, that is $2,000 a hectare. That is a huge amount of money to a developing country. That money would convince the country not to cut down the trees in that jungle.

This is important, because the two great lungs of the world, in Amazonia and the Congo Basin, are being destroyed as we speak. Once they are destroyed, we cannot get them back. There is an urgency on this matter that I cannot overstate. The failure to deal with this now will affect the health of this planet for generations to come, and there is no going back.

Canada should take a leadership role in supporting the REDD program. The carbon sinks in the world have a value, and the REDD program convinces countries not to destroy what really belongs to all of us.

There was another innovative program, which took place in Cameroon. It has an area between two national parks that is crucial habitat. Cameroon is a poor country and it does not have the money to protect that habitat. But if that area is leased out, it could be protected and a larger area could be created that is crucially important for the migration of animals.

Canada should take a leadership role in convincing the international development community that part of the money for official development assistance should go into these programs. Areas could be preserved by leasing them at a small amount of money, thereby protecting critical habitat and preventing them from being destroyed. These areas are really part of a legacy for everyone around the world; they do not belong to one country. If we protect these areas, we protect the health of our planet.

I would also like to speak on the issue of trafficking. Most Canadians know about the trafficking in guns, drugs, people, alcohol and cigarettes that takes place in our country. What they probably do not know, and this is a shocking embarrassment, is that Canada is one of the top conduits in the world for trafficking in endangered species. It is true. Organized crime benefits from this illegal product.

We are a conduit of products, whether it is products from big cats, the various tiger species existing in Asia, our own bear gall bladders, bear paws, a host of different animal products, that are trafficked through Canada.

There is also an online trafficking process that takes place now. In fact, the International Fund for Animal Welfare did a great assessment of this and it was frightening. It took a look at 7,100 auctions taking place online for the trafficking and selling in endangered species products.

These were animal parts, as outlined in appendix I and appendix II. These animals are threatened with extinction. As I said before, appendix I lists at all the big cats species, such as the Bengal tiger, the Siberian tiger and the Sumerian tiger, which is down to 300. There has been a massive decrease in the Bengal tiger. All the various tiger subspecies are being destroyed.

Canada has the trafficking of bear products and other animal products, both large and small. Let us not forget reptiles and birds are trafficked illegally all over the world.

The government needs to take these issues seriously. It must look at working towards developing effective legislation to address the trafficking of these products on line. The failure to do this will contribute, and has contributed, to a massive change and effect on the ability of these animals to survive.

Part of the solution is to have robust domestic legislation, enforcement of that legislation and awareness. We can work with our partners in the NGO community and in others. We have a lot of extraordinary environmental groups in Canada. In fact, the International Conservation Caucus Foundation has hosted the IUCN, the WWF and Alanna Mitchell on the effect on our oceans, and we will host others. COSEWIC was here recently also.

The lack of attention the government has given to the environment is an abrogation of its responsibility to protect environment.

Another mismanagement on the part of the government is the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I do not know why the government attached changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act to the budget bill, Bill C-10. This has caused enormous concern among Canadians. It has nothing to do with the economy.

This is a various serious problem in my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. There are concerns about access, environmental protection, projects moved forward without any interest whatsoever on the effects those projects will be on our areas.

Right now we have a mega marina project proposed for the inner harbour in Victoria. In my view this project is a recipe for a human disaster. Without the proper assessments, the project will cause a safety hazard, which will potentially cause the death of Canadians.

Canada has an enormous opportunity. The march to extinction is occurring now. Our biodiversity is linked to our survival. Once this is gone, it will never come back.

If we fail to deal with this problem now, if we fail to integrate conservation and human development, if we fail to integrate economic interests and preservation, if we fail to take an international approach to protect the large carbon sinks in the world, if we fail to have an effective plan to deal with global warming, if we fail to protect the our areas of critical habitat, if we fail to do these things, then our species will be doomed too.

[Denise Boucher, Vice-President, Confédération des syndicats nationaux]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Confédération des syndicats nationaux would like to thank the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for this opportunity to propose solutions for the fight against poverty in Canada.

The CSN, the second largest labour confederation in Canada, represents 2,800 unions in Quebec and 300,000 members, most of whom are Francophone. Even though the Standing Committee began its study of the federal government's contribution to reducing poverty in Canada in the spring of 2008, we believe it is appropriate to state, right from the beginning, that this study is extremely timely.

Whatever people may say, the political crisis in recent months has brought home the importance of establishing mechanisms which will no longer be unacceptable and unfair to the jobless, older workers, women and Quebec, and which make them highly vulnerable. Why do we refer specifically to Quebec? Well, because we believe that the changes announced to the equalization formula last fall, which were confirmed in the most recent budget, will result in a loss for Quebec of $1 billion, this year, and up to $2 billion, next year. This will essentially deprive Quebec of the means to address the current crisis and will undoubtedly deprive large segments of the population of the necessary spinoffs, which could have been invested in health care or post-secondary education. To weaken Quebec, particularly in those two areas, is to deprive Quebeckers of the opportunity to raise their standard of living.

As regards employment insurance, given that more than 129,000 jobs have been lost since January—something that has not been seen in 32 years—it is abundantly clear that our safety net is quickly unravelling. Employment insurance is a frontline economic lever and family support. The money is spent immediately and locally to feed a family, pay bills and buy clothing for children. It is also the local economy as a whole, and even that of an entire region, that will feel the effects of either access, or no access, to EI benefits for laid-off workers.

Quebec has already been hit hard by the forest industry crisis, as we all know. The Government of Quebec's investment in that industry has been significant. However, one cannot help but notice that the federal government has not stepped up to the plate to address that crisis.

In the Mauricie Region, 2,500 people lost their jobs in the forest industry in one year. We are therefore asking for significant improvements to be made as regards access to the EI system. We are suggesting that there be a single requirement of 360 hours, an increased benefit rate—based on 60 % of an individual's wages over the 12 best weeks—and that the two-week waiting period be abolished. Why should workers be penalized for two weeks? Since when do people work for free? Furthermore, the CSN has long been demanding a financial support program that would allow older workers who have lost their jobs to bridge the gap between the end of their employment insurance benefits and the beginning of their retirement benefits.

Since POWA was cancelled in March of 1997, nothing has been done to help a whole category of workers who are more severely affected than young people during periods of unemployment. Indeed, you heard from witnesses a little earlier, including representatives of the CSD, who told you exactly the same thing. In fact, several years ago, the four main central labour bodies formed a coalition to address this question. We made representations to the Government of Quebec which were acted on. Unfortunately, there has been no response from the federal government.

As you were probably told a little earlier, the CSN believes that, in order to be eligible for the income support program, an individual should be over the age of 55, have been subject to a mass lay-off or company shutdown, have at least 10 years of labour market attachment over the last 30 years, be in a situation where the gap between acquired skills and those required by the labour market is significant, be unable to find truly gainful employment and find a job in his or her region.

With respect to women—I mentioned this in my introduction—we consider Bill C-10 to be an affront to the fundamental rights of women and to recognition of the value of their work.

This legislation attacks women's rights by preventing them from accessing equal pay for work of equal value, in particular, and by adding to generally-acknowledged job assessment criteria, additional elements that reflect the needs of employers in terms of recruitment and labour retention. In other words, wage discrimination is allowed if it can be justified by market conditions—something which is completely unacceptable.

We are therefore recommending that proactive legislation be introduced to help women escape poverty and ensure that women workers will no longer be considered second class. I would also be remiss if I did not emphasize the importance of investing in social housing and the need for a federal contribution in that regard.

That completes my presentation.

[Isabelle Roy]

First of all, as far including this bill in BillC-10goes, we agree in every way with the views stated by the representatives of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

There is no evidence to suggest that linking this bill with Bill C-10 will save any money. Besides, even if that were the case, we are talking about a fundamental human right that should not be sacrificed for a few pennies. There is no proof of any cost savings to be had and even if that were the case, that would not be a good enough reason, in my opinion, to justify the inclusion of this legislation in an omnibus bill.

To answer your second question as to whether the proposed process is more efficient and expeditious, we have indeed heard some comment to that effect. In essence, the bill ties pay equity to the collective bargaining process.

Collective bargaining in the public sector is by no means a speedy process. When the legislation imposing wage restrictions was passed, some groups had been engaged in collective bargaining for several years.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Good day. Thank you very much for coming here today.

I will put the first question, then defer to my colleague.

Ms. Roy, you stated in your introductory remarks that pay equity rights are fully justified. There are two parts to my question.

First, do you feel that the changes to pay equity brought in by the government in its budget, that is in BillC-10 , were justified? Ms. Ducharme has already answered this question, but I would like to know your views on this matter.

The government maintains that the changes will mean pay equity complaints will be handled in a more expeditious manner. Do you agree with that statement?

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on March 13, I asked a question about negotiations with the Association of Justice Counsel.

Let us go back to the presentation of the last Conservative budget and the introduction of Bill C-10, Budget Implementation Act, 2009.

The Conservatives have resorted to an underhanded strategy. They have tabled an omnibus bill that includes amendments to other legislation such as the Navigable Waters Protection Act and measures to restrain government spending, particularly in the area of pay increases.

We, Liberals, supported that budget reluctantly to help Canadians in need pull through this financial crisis as quickly as possible.

The Conservatives have taken advantage of an opportunity to penalize their public service. The bill limits pay increases for federal public servants to 1.5% annually, from 2008-09 to 2010-11, despite the collective agreements in effect.

What is the impact of these provisions? It is extremely important. The Conservatives are being sued by two unions: the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada.

These two unions represent over 215,000 members. Their voice is important and we must listen to them. What do they have against the Conservatives? They are upset by the Conservatives' decision to restrict the power to fully negotiate the salaries and wages of public servants. This would violate the freedom of association guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the right to collective bargaining recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada.

That situation is unfair to our public servants, but it is even more so in the case of the over 2,000 lawyers who work for the Government of Canada. Let me explain. In 2003, the lawyers and notaries obtained from Parliament permission to negotiate a first collective agreement. Unfortunately, because the parties could not agree, they resorted to mediation. Since that did not work either, the parties went to arbitration.

The problem is that the two sides could not agree on a fair remuneration before Bill C-10 was passed. This means that the union is now forced to accept salary increases that are based on a scale that goes back more than 20 years.

That situation is unfair. It puts Government of Canada lawyers in seventh place, in terms of salaries. For example, the starting salary of a federal government lawyer is 37% lower than that of his Ontario counterpart. Even though most Government of Canada lawyers live in Ontario, their salary is between 40% and 60% lower than that of their colleagues with the Ontario government.

How can the government attract young lawyers if it refuses to give them fair and equitable pay? Similarly, how can it keep its experienced professional lawyers, so that they will continue to protect our values and our rights?

Finally, this situation, which is unfair to begin with, exists in the context of the fight against crime, of which the Conservatives claim to be the standard bearers. On the one hand they create new offences, while on the other hand they reduce the resources allowing us to prosecute criminals. That is nonsense. It is a fundamental contradiction and it is sheer hypocrisy.

My question is still valid: will the Conservatives reconsider their decision and change the salary base for counsel, on which salary increases provided under the 2009 Budget Implementation Act are based?

Electronic Commerce Protection Act

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for highlighting some of the good things in this piece of legislation but also some of the concerns.

I want to return to section 86 which repeals sections 41.1 to 41.7 of the act. Here it is in black and white.

The government may say it is in here, but it will enact it at some point in time. We recently had some experience in the House with the government embedding critical items in other pieces of legislation. I just need to point to the budget bill, Bill C-10. In that bill we saw the embedding of the Navigable Waters Protection Act with significant changes to it that impact on our environment, pay equity legislation where women can no longer in this country file a human rights complaint for equal pay for work of equal value, and significant changes to the student loans program.

Canadians will have to forgive New Democrats when the Conservatives say “trust me. It is okay. This is here but we don't really mean it”. What is that saying about deny, delay, and then go to jail.

What we have here is that it says “repeal”. It relates to the do-not-call registry.

My question for the member is this. Why does he think it was hidden in section 86 of the legislation, almost near the very end on page 56 out of 69 pages.? Why is it buried at the end of the legislation? Why was it not included in the government briefing documents?

I think it is an important piece to have a legitimate discussion.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member was speaking, I was reminded that about a month ago there was an RCMP appreciation night in the city of Nanaimo. The funds raised went toward supporting the local mid-island crisis and relief centres. Thousands of dollars were raised that night. It was a way of honouring the RCMP officers, but it was also a way of working with the RCMP to raise funds for a very important initiative. The RCMP officers generously gave of their time to attend that event and support the crisis centres. They also work very closely with the crisis centres. We know that those crisis centres have saved lives.

As members have pointed out, this is a very technical bill, but the portability of pensions is absolutely critical. We have been talking about the fact that the non-portability has been a barrier.

Also, RCMP officers have not been paid as well as other police officers in this country. That is the sad part of Bill C-10, the budget implementation act. It rolls back a negotiated wage increase that would have made some steps toward the RCMP being paid the same rate as other police forces.

Right now, the non-portability of pensions is a deterrent to attracting officers. If officers want to move from a municipal force to the RCMP, it is a deterrent for them to do it because they will not get credit for their time served with the other police forces. This bill will remedy that. That is an important step toward recruitment and retention. Again, I believe that all members in the House will be supporting the bill.