Bill C-45 (Historical)

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

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

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures and related measures proposed in the March 29, 2012 budget. Most notably, it
(a) amends the rules relating to Registered Disability Savings Plans (RDSPs) by
(i) replacing the 10-year repayment rule applying to withdrawals with a proportional repayment rule,
(ii) allowing investment income earned in a Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP) to be transferred on a tax-free basis to the RESP beneficiary’s RDSP,
(iii) extending the period that RDSPs of beneficiaries who cease to qualify for the Disability Tax Credit may remain open in certain circumstances,
(iv) amending the rules relating to maximum and minimum withdrawals, and
(v) amending certain RDSP administrative rules;
(b) includes an employer’s contributions to a group sickness or accident insurance plan in an employee’s income in certain circumstances;
(c) amends the rules applicable to retirement compensation arrangements;
(d) amends the rules applicable to Employees Profit Sharing Plans;
(e) expands the eligibility for the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation equipment to include a broader range of bioenergy equipment;
(f) phases out the Corporate Mineral Exploration and Development Tax Credit;
(g) phases out the Atlantic Investment Tax Credit for activities related to the oil and gas and mining sectors;
(h) provides that qualified property for the purposes of the Atlantic Investment Tax Credit will include certain electricity generation equipment and clean energy generation equipment used primarily in an eligible activity;
(i) amends the Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) investment tax credit by
(i) reducing the general SR&ED investment tax credit rate from 20% to 15%,
(ii) reducing the prescribed proxy amount, which taxpayers use to claim SR&ED overhead expenditures, from 65% to 55% of the salaries and wages of employees who are engaged in SR&ED activities,
(iii) removing the profit element from arm’s length third-party contracts for the purpose of the calculation of SR&ED tax credits, and
(iv) removing capital from the base of eligible expenditures for the purpose of the calculation of SR&ED tax incentives;
(j) introduces rules to prevent the avoidance of corporate income tax through the use of partnerships to convert income gains into capital gains;
(k) clarifies that transfer pricing secondary adjustments are treated as dividends for the purposes of withholding tax imposed under Part XIII of the Income Tax Act;
(l) amends the thin capitalization rules by
(i) reducing the debt-to-equity ratio from 2:1 to 1.5:1,
(ii) extending the scope of the thin capitalization rules to debts of partnerships of which a Canadian-resident corporation is a member,
(iii) treating disallowed interest expense under the thin capitalization rules as dividends for the purposes of withholding tax imposed under Part XIII of the Income Tax Act, and
(iv) preventing double taxation in certain circumstances when a Canadian resident corporation borrows money from its controlled foreign affiliate;
(m) imposes, in certain circumstances, withholding tax under Part XIII of the Income Tax Act when a foreign-based multinational corporation transfers a foreign affiliate to its Canadian subsidiary, while preserving the ability of the Canadian subsidiary to undertake expansion of its Canadian business; and
(n) phases out the Overseas Employment Tax Credit.
Part 1 also implements other selected income tax measures. Most notably, it introduces tax rules to accommodate Pooled Registered Pension Plans and provides that income received from a retirement compensation arrangement is eligible for pension income splitting in certain circumstances.
Part 2 amends the Excise Tax Act and the Jobs and Economic Growth Act to implement rules applicable to the financial services sector in respect of the goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax (GST/HST). They include rules that allow certain financial institutions to obtain pre-approval from the Minister of National Revenue of methods used to determine their liability in respect of the provincial component of the HST, that require certain financial institutions to have fiscal years that are calendar years, that require group registration of financial institutions in certain cases and that provide for changes to a rebate of the provincial component of the HST to certain financial institutions that render services to clients that are outside the HST provinces. This Part also confirms the authority under which certain GST/HST regulations relating to financial institutions are made.
Part 3 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to provide the legislative authority to share with provinces and territories taxes in respect of specified investment flow-through (SIFT) entities — trusts or partnerships — under section 122.1 and Part IX.1 of the Income Tax Act, consistent with the federal government’s proposal on the introduction of those taxes. It also provides the legislative authority to share with provinces and territories the tax on excess EPSP amounts imposed under Part XI.4 of the Income Tax Act, consistent with the measures proposed in the March 29, 2012 budget. It also allows the Minister of Finance to request from the Minister of National Revenue information that is necessary for the administration of the sharing of taxes with the provinces and territories.
Part 4 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Jobs and Economic Growth Act as a result of amendments introduced in the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act to allow certain public sector investment pools to directly invest in a federally regulated financial institution.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 to permit the incorporation by reference into regulations of all Canadian modifications to an international convention or industry standard that are also incorporated by reference into the regulations, by means of a mechanism similar to that used by many other maritime nations. It also provides for third parties acting on the Minister of Transport’s behalf to set fees for certain services that they provide in accordance with an agreement with that Minister.
Division 3 of Part 4 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to, among other things, provide for a limited, automatic stay in respect of certain eligible financial contracts when a bridge institution is established. It also amends the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act to facilitate central clearing of standardized over-the-counter derivatives.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Fisheries Act to amend the prohibition against obstructing the passage of fish and to provide that certain amounts are to be paid into the Environmental Damages Fund. It also amends the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act to amend the definition of Aboriginal fishery and another prohibition relating to the passage of fish. Finally, it provides transitional provisions relating to authorizations issued under the Fisheries Act before certain amendments to that Act come into force.
Division 5 of Part 4 enacts the Bridge To Strengthen Trade Act, which excludes the application of certain Acts to the construction of a bridge that spans the Detroit River and other works and to their initial operator. That Act also establishes ancillary measures. It also amends the International Bridges and Tunnels Act.
Division 6 of Part 4 amends Schedule I to the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act to reflect changes made to the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund as a result of the 2010 Quota and Governance Reforms. The amendments pertain to the rules and regulations of the Fund’s Executive Board and complete the updating of that Act to reflect those reforms.
Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Canada Pension Plan to implement the results of the 2010-12 triennial review, most notably, to clarify that contributions for certain benefits must be made during the contributory period, to clarify how certain deductions are to be determined for the purpose of calculating average monthly pensionable earnings, to determine the minimum qualifying period for certain late applicants for a disability pension and to enhance the authority of the Review Tribunal and the Pension Appeals Board. It also amends the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act to enhance the authority of the Social Security Tribunal.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the Indian Act to modify the voting and approval procedures in relation to proposed land designations.
Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Judges Act to implement the Government of Canada’s response to the report of the fourth Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission regarding salary and benefits for federally appointed judges. It also amends that Act to shorten the period in which the Government of Canada must respond to a report of the Commission.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Canada Labour Code to
(a) simplify the calculation of holiday pay;
(b) set out the timelines for making certain complaints under Part III of that Act and the circumstances in which an inspector may suspend or reject such complaints;
(c) set limits on the period that may be covered by payment orders; and
(d) provide for a review mechanism for payment orders and notices of unfounded complaint.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act to transfer the powers and duties of the Merchant Seamen Compensation Board to the Minister of Labour and to repeal provisions that are related to the Board. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 12 of Part 4 amends the Customs Act to strengthen and streamline procedures related to arrivals in Canada, to clarify the obligations of owners or operators of international transport installations to maintain port of entry facilities and to allow the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to require prescribed information about any person who is or is expected to be on board a conveyance.
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act to transfer the powers and functions of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission to the Minister of Health and to repeal provisions of that Act that are related to the Commission. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 14 of Part 4 amends the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act to reflect changes made to Chapter 17 of the Agreement on Internal Trade. It provides primarily for the enforceability of orders to pay tariff costs and monetary penalties made under Chapter 17. It also repeals subsection 28(3) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.
Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to provide a temporary measure to refund a portion of employer premiums for small businesses. An employer whose premiums were $10,000 or less in 2011 will be refunded the increase in 2012 premiums over those paid in 2011, to a maximum of $1,000.
Division 16 of Part 4 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to provide for an electronic travel authorization and to provide that the User Fees Act does not apply to a fee for the provision of services in relation to an application for an electronic travel authorization.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act to remove the age limit for persons from outside the federal public administration being appointed or continuing as President or as a director of the Corporation.
Division 18 of Part 4 amends the Navigable Waters Protection Act to limit that Act’s application to works in certain navigable waters that are set out in its schedule. It also amends that Act so that it can be deemed to apply to certain works in other navigable waters, with the approval of the Minister of Transport. In particular, it amends that Act to provide for an assessment process for certain works and to provide that works that are assessed as likely to substantially interfere with navigation require the Minister’s approval. It also amends that Act to provide for administrative monetary penalties and additional offences. Finally, it makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts.
Division 19 of Part 4 amends the Canada Grain Act to
(a) combine terminal elevators and transfer elevators into a single class of elevators called terminal elevators;
(b) replace the requirement that the operator of a licensed terminal elevator receiving grain cause that grain to be officially weighed and officially inspected by a requirement that the operator either weigh and inspect that grain or cause that grain to be weighed and inspected by a third party;
(c) provide for recourse if an operator does not weigh or inspect the grain, or cause it to be weighed or inspected;
(d) repeal the grain appeal tribunals;
(e) repeal the requirement for weigh-overs; and
(f) provide the Canadian Grain Commission with the power to make regulations or orders with respect to weighing and inspecting grain and the security that is to be obtained and maintained by licensees.
It also amends An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and to Repeal the Grain Futures Act as well as other Acts, and includes transitional provisions.
Division 20 of Part 4 amends the International Interests in Mobile Equipment (aircraft equipment) Act and other Acts to modify the manner in which certain international obligations are implemented.
Division 21 of Part 4 makes technical amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and amends one of its transitional provisions to make that Act applicable to designated projects, as defined in that Act, for which an environmental assessment would have been required under the former Act.
Division 22 of Part 4 provides for the temporary suspension of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board Act and the dissolution of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. Consequently, it enacts an interim Employment Insurance premium rate-setting regime under the Employment Insurance Act and makes amendments to the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board Act, the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act and Schedule III to the Financial Administration Act.
Division 23 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
The Canadian Forces Superannuation Act is amended to change the limitations that apply in respect of the contribution rates at which contributors are required to pay as a result of amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act.
The Public Service Superannuation Act is amended to provide that contributors pay no more than 50% of the current service cost of the pension plan. In addition, the pensionable age is raised from 60 to 65 in relation to persons who become contributors on or after January 1, 2013.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act is amended to change the limitations that apply in respect of the contribution rates at which contributors are required to pay as a result of amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act.
Division 24 of Part 4 amends the Canada Revenue Agency Act to make section 112 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act applicable to the Canada Revenue Agency. That section makes entering into a collective agreement subject to the Governor in Council’s approval. The Division also amends the Canada Revenue Agency Act to require that the Agency have its negotiating mandate approved by the President of the Treasury Board and to require that it consult the President of the Treasury Board before determining certain other terms and conditions of employment for its employees.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I know that you are very attentive to members' questions and that you do not hesitate to speak up when they are not in line with our study.

Mr. Woodworth is an excellent colleague and I appreciate him very much, but since we have very little time for the study on amendments to Bill C-45, I think we should get to the heart of the matter right away.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you very much for coming before the committee.

Before I ask you a question, I have to make a comment on the process, which is outside your purview.

Our committee is looking at some clauses in Bill C-45. It is a huge bill that we as a committee actually can't make amendments to. If we wish, the committee can choose to write to the finance committee to propose amendments. This isn't a normal process for a committee to undertake study of a bill, a bill that has the potential of having serious impacts for first nations communities across this country.

I needed to make that comment.

We have a letter here from Treaty 8 that in a way captures some of the concerns that people are raising. It says:

As the government has encoded these changes within the present omnibus legislation, the Indigenous Nations have no process to make changes. We have been silenced by the parliament process. We cannot make any oral intervention.

Then they go on to say that as a result, they're submitting their comments in writing. They say this is a prime example of the racism exhibited by the state of Canada towards their nation. Decisions are being made without their consent.

As you bring these changes forward, there are two questions I'd like you to answer. First, what consultation process did the department undertake prior to these changes being brought forward?

Second, although this is being touted as a way to speed up the process, what changes are being made within the department itself? I notice that the FAQs your department put out say the proposed amendments would not change the current level of service provided to first nations, including the initial discussions in planning and community information. Of course, I met with first nations across this country who continue to talk about the substantial delays within the department.

If you could address those two questions, I'd appreciate it.

[Andrew Beynon, Director General, Community Opportunities Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you. Bonjour.

I would like to spend a few moments providing a bit of background on current Indian Act provisions dealing with designations to explain the context and then provide some information with respect to the proposed amendments in Bill C-45 that change the designation process.

Before I begin, I should mention that my name is Andrew Beynon. I'm director general of community opportunities branch at the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. With me today is Kris Johnson, who is our senior director of lands modernization. We also have the good fortune of having Paul Salembier here; he is our legal counsel and has worked with us on these amendments.

I'll begin by saying that the concept of land designations in the Indian Act is relatively new compared to much of the Indian Act. These provisions were introduced into the Indian Act in 1988. They were designed to refine the provisions in the Indian Act dealing with use of reserve lands to create a category that allows for first nations to deal with lands, but without having to absolutely surrender them.

In this way, designated lands could remain reserve lands and not be cut out of the reserve. This feature of designation is particularly useful for entering into leases. That's because a lease is, of course, a temporary use of the lands, not a permanent alienation of the reserve lands. The designation provisions were added into the Indian Act primarily to allow for some first nations to also make arrangements to tax the leasehold interest, rather than have a third party on the reserve lands and lose that parcel of reserve land entirely.

By way of introduction, one of the interesting things for parliamentarians is that when the designation provisions were introduced into the Indian Act, they were introduced right into the provisions that deal with absolute and conditional surrenders of land, so when you look at the sections starting at section 38 of the Indian Act, you'll see references to absolute surrenders, conditional surrenders, and designations.

In the legislative provisions in Bill C-45, which make amendments to the designation process to make it more effective, we've tried, or the legislative drafters have tried, to keep largely intact and unchanged the provisions dealing with absolute and conditional surrenders, and to segment more and make clearer the designation provisions. I wanted to offer that as an introductory point: that these provisions in Bill C-45 really do focus on designations, and as much as possible leave unchanged the procedures and the provisions dealing with an absolute surrender when a first nation wants to take some land out of a reserve.

One of the key features of designations under the Indian Act is that designations have enabled first nations to provide jobs for community members through leases, as I mentioned before, collect property taxes from commercial and industrial developments, and even attract capital for developing small and medium-sized businesses. This is also relevant to the management of petroleum and mineral resources that are under Indian Act reserves. It's a connection of the designation provisions to the Indian Oil and Gas Act.

Designations have many purposes, ranging from oil and gas to commercial leases to industrial leases, and I think some of the witnesses who will follow us today will speak with their experience about the use of designations for these kinds of long-term leases.

Procedurally, under the Indian Act as it stands now, before the amendments proposed under Bill C-45, there are two important provisions with respect to designations. One of them is that the Indian Act is set up to require a community to hold a vote to decide upon a designation. It's not just the role of the band council; the voting procedure for designations under the Indian Act requires a majority of eligible electors to be present.

In practice, since 1988, whenever designations have been held, about 80% of first nation communities have failed to get the required voter participation or turnout at that first vote.

Under the current system, if a band council fails to get the required turnout on the first vote, it can request that a second vote take place to consider the proposed designation of lands. On that second vote, there is a lower threshold for voter approval.

The key point to raise with committee members is that in practice under the current Indian Act provisions, we have seen that in about 80% of these cases we're going to the second vote with the lower threshold.

The second issue with respect to the current Indian Act designation process is that after the community gets through the voting process, and usually a second vote, the consideration of the designation requires a federal approval in order for it to become valid. That federal approval is by the Governor in Council. The proposed designation comes in to our department and is reviewed by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, but then is taken one step further, going to a full order in council.

I will turn now to the nature of the proposed amendments in Bill C-45. As I said earlier, these are proposed amendments that deal only with designations. We've tried as much as possible to thread out any of the provisions dealing with absolute surrenders and leave those unchanged.

The key to these provisions in Bill C-45 is to make two improvements to what I have described before, which have ended up being lengthy and expensive processes for achieving designations of lands.

The first amendment is to lower the voting threshold for every designation referendum, eliminating the process of going to second votes and requiring merely a simple majority of voters in favour. It is anticipated that this will save months of time and the financial resources that would be required to conduct second votes.

I should stress that this is just an issue of the voting threshold, based on the practice and experience we have gained over time. This is not an alteration of the role of on-reserve and off-reserve voters. Under the current designation provisions, both on- and off-reserve members are entitled to vote; the same would hold true if Bill C-45 is passed.

The second proposed amendment, again based on our experience with the speed and cost of designation processes, is to eliminate the requirement for approval by Governor in Council as the final step in the designation process and instead simply provide that the minister may approve the designation.

These two proposed steps, I would suggest to you, do not represent a fundamental break with the concepts that have been around since 1988 for designations. It is still a process for temporary alienation of lands, primarily for leasing purposes. There is a community ratification process open to all of the community members and there is a federal approval to finalize the designation. All we have done is simplify the voting process and the federal approval, not eliminate either one of them.

I hope these opening comments provide some explanation of the provisions. We'd be happy to answer questions.

[Dr. Brenda Kenny, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. My name is Brenda Kenny, and it's a pleasure to appear before you to share some of the views of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association.

Joining me is my colleague Elizabeth Swanson, who is chair of CEPA's work group on regulatory affairs. Importantly, she brings her perspective as a lawyer who has worked in the practice of environmental assessment for many years.

Before she provides her legal perspectives, I'd like to share a few general comments from CEPA's point of view with respect to Bill C-45 and the clauses being reviewed.

In delivering budget 2012 Minister Flaherty acknowledged that the natural resource and energy sector is “driving economic growth across the country. They are creating good jobs, not only directly but also indirectly, in manufacturing, clerical work, skilled trades, and financial services.” Minister Flaherty said, “Canada’s resource industries offer huge potential to create even more jobs and growth, now and over the next generation.”

Accordingly, the responsible resource development provisions of Bill C-38 put in place the enabling conditions to realize these opportunities, and we believe Bill C-45 is a further positive step in this direction.

CEPA is a very strong supporter of the objectives behind regulatory reform, namely improving the efficiency of, and most importantly, the environmental outcomes, from environmental assessment and regulatory review of major infrastructure projects.

We do not believe that environmental protection has been watered down or impaired in any way by these changes. Rather, for the pipeline industry, the processes enabled through CEAA, 2012 and amendments to the NEB Act allow government and stakeholders to improve outcomes by focusing assessments on key environmental concerns, using best practices and avoiding significant adverse environmental effects by being able to allocate resources more efficiently and effectively. Together these changes have strengthened, focused, and clarified the purposes of Canada's environmental legislation and set the scene for enhanced environmental outcomes going forward.

Bill C-45 makes a number of important contributions toward these objectives and clarifies the interpretation of the new provisions and the transition arrangements to the current regulatory system, all of which will provide greater certainty.

I'd like to invite my colleague Elizabeth Swanson to provide her perspectives.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, I'll call to order this 50th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Today, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are studying the subject material of clauses 206 to 209 of the Indian Act in Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.

Colleagues, before we get started with our witnesses who are waiting here, we do have just one piece of housekeeping business with regard to the decision by the subcommittee to convene this meeting. We have a budget that needs to be passed.

Our witnesses are here, but in fact, if we don't okay the provisions of the budget, it's coming out of Jim's paycheque—

[Dr. Meinhard Doelle, Professor, Dalhousie University, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and committee members.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you about the proposed amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

At the outset, I should say that my general reaction to the amendments proposed in Bill C-45 is that some are helpful and others are not. None of them addresses what I would consider to be significant shortcomings in the current federal environmental assessment process. I propose to do two things in my 10 minutes. I propose to briefly go through the amendments proposed and indicate my reaction to them, and in the remaining time to comment more generally about the current act and perhaps what further amendments may be considered.

Starting with section 7, I suggest that the proposed amendments to section 7 are appropriate. They are helpful, so I don't propose to comment further on them.

With respect to paragraph 14(5)(b), my reaction to that proposed amendment is that the subsection already restricts the ability of the minister to call for an environmental assessment of a project not on the designated project list. Just because the federal authority has already granted one approval does not mean that a federal environmental assessment may not still be warranted. The amendment, in my view, would seem to make this worse by broadening the range of decisions which, once made, would prevent the minister from exercising discretion to require an environmental assessment. I would suggest that amendment not be passed.

On subsection 53(4), the amendment is a positive change to the act and I would support it.

The proposed amendments to sections 63 and 64 are very similar amendments, so I will make one comment with respect to both. It would seem inappropriate to permit the environmental assessment to be terminated unless it is clear that the decision not to exercise a federal power, due to your function with respect to the project, would in fact prevent the project from being carried out. For this reason, the proposed amendment to section 63 should not be adopted. The original versions of sections 63 and 64 are stronger.

With respect to the proposed amendments to sections 66, 67, and 128, I view those as appropriate and have no further comments.

That leaves me with a few comments about the current state of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. My view is that this version of the act no longer provides a solid foundation for good decision-making on projects, which is along the lines of what was suggested by Justice La Forest as far back as 1992.

The CEAA, 2012 introduces unnecessary uncertainties about the application of the act. It encourages the application of the act late in the process. It turns the process into a regulatory process rather than a planning process. It focuses on a narrow range of issues that will not enable a federal decision-maker to make sound decisions about whether and under what circumstances proposed projects be permitted to proceed. The focus on large projects carries with it the risk of missing significant adverse impacts and cumulative impacts of smaller projects.

In the time remaining I would like to make three modest recommendations for improvements to the act.

Number one is that we do away with the discretion not to require an environmental assessment at the project registration stage. There is a lot of experience with this approach in provincial environmental assessments. It has not been positive. The effect of this approach is to push the proponent to complete its planning and design before the EA actually starts. Essentially, it turns an environmental assessment planning process into a duplication of the existing regulatory process. In this case, the way the act is currently structured, this discretion is not needed. The designated project list is already modest. There is power of substitution and equivalency in the act already.

My second recommendation is that the scope of environmental effects to be considered under the federal assessment be broadened to ensure that appropriate information is gathered for sound decision-making.

I recognize that for joint panel reviews this likely already happens, but in federal only assessments, by limiting the scope of the assessment to key areas of regulatory responsibility, such as fisheries, migratory birds, and impacts on aboriginal peoples, we are turning an environmental assessment process into a duplication of existing regulatory and other core federal responsibilities, and in the process are undermining the whole point of doing an environmental assessment.

The third recommendation I would make is that we proceed further on the positive steps taken in the act to recognize regional environmental assessment and to recognize, in the purpose section, the importance of cumulative effects. The future of environmental assessment is to get a handle on how to do better cumulative effects and to more appropriately use strategic environmental assessment and regional environmental assessments to assist with the difficulties we've all encountered at the project level. I would suggest that the act should set out a process for doing strategic environmental assessments and regional assessments, and it should set out clear circumstances for when those are required.

With respect to cumulative effects, my main recommendation is that we need to move beyond doing cumulative effects with existing and future projects. It should be based primarily on reasonable future development scenarios, and that piece should become central to environmental assessments, including project EAs, SEAs, and regional environmental assessments.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

We'll call the meeting to order. This is the 53rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

As we study Bill C-45, we will welcome as witnesses, Ms. Swanson, Ms. Kenny, and Dr. Doelle. We will be ending this portion in 45 minutes, at 4:15.

Each of the witness groups has 10 minutes, so Ms. Swanson and Ms. Kenny, you will be sharing 10 minutes.

We will begin with Professor Doelle from Dalhousie University. You have 10 minutes.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome back to all of our guests.

Hopefully, I get the opportunity to ask each of you a question. My first question is to Mr. Bissett. In your speaking notes, at the front, you mentioned you were in favour of this simple measure. I'm looking at the changes that are included in Bill C-45. Really, it's just a couple of pages—not even two pages, a few paragraphs.

Why do you refer to it as a simple measure?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We will reconvene the meeting.

We have, by video conference from Vancouver, from the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, Mr. Martin Collacott; and as an individual, Mr. James Bissett, who is on the board of directors for the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform.

Both of these individuals have appeared so many times before that I'm beginning to know them better than I do members of the committee.

We welcome you back to the committee to give your views on these sections of Bill C-45.

We also have, from NextgenID Canada Inc., Robert L. Bell, who is the senior vice-president of corporate and business development.

You too have appeared here before, Mr. Bell. I welcome you on behalf of the committee.

Each of the three of you will have up to eight minutes.

Mr. Bell, you can go first.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

With respect to Bill C-45 and the biometric measures of the User Fees Act, I would like to know what recourse applicants will have if the minister decides to eliminate the backlog of files having to do with electronic authorizations or biometric measures, as he did in the context of Bill C-38 with files from before 2008.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here this morning.

With respect to Bill C-45, and more specifically the electronic authorization service in the context of the User Fees Act, I would like to know what recourse there would be if mistakes are made when electronic authorizations are processed.

[Les Linklater, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you.

I will introduce my colleagues: Maia Welbourne, who is the director in admissibility policy responsible for the electronic travel authorization, and Marie Bourry, our senior general counsel.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to speak to you today about Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, and more specifically the subject matter of division 16 of part 4 of the act. I will focus my remarks on one particular element of this piece of legislation: a measure that will bring valuable improvements to Canada's immigration system.

As members of this committee are well aware, the Government of Canada has made the reform of the immigration system an important priority. Recent initiatives in this regard have helped to foster an immigration system that can fill significant labour shortages across the country and help us meet our economic needs more quickly and efficiently—a system designed to give newcomers the best possible chance to succeed.

As it does so, the government is implementing policies that safeguard the integrity and security of our immigration system. Taken together, all of these initiatives are helping to deliver transformation changes to the immigration system.

Not only is that system central to our economic well-being and our social cohesion, Mr. Chair, it is also an important piece of Canada's international relations agenda. And in the area of international relationships, our partnership with our closest ally, the United States, is of paramount importance to Canada. Indeed, the United States is—by far—Canada's largest trading partner. In a typical year, more than $500 billion worth of two-way trade takes place between our countries. Also, about 400,000 people cross our shared border every day, by all modes of transport.

As you know, last year, Prime Minister Harper and President Obama launched the action plan on perimeter security and economic competitiveness. This agreement signaled a mutual desire on the part of both Canada and the United States to work in partnership to enhance the security of our borders and facilitate the flow of people and goods between our countries. Passage of the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 will help fulfill one of Canada's key commitments of the action plan.

That's because one of the measures in this bill would enable the implementation of the eTA, an electronic travel authorization.

The eTA is a measure that will bring valuable improvements to Canada's immigration system. We will be able to screen individuals before they board a plane to visit our country, in order to determine whether or not they pose an admissibility or security risk. In other words, we will be able to determine whether they have a criminal record or something else on their file that shows they present a risk to Canada. This will apply to foreign nationals who do not require a visa to visit Canada; the only exception would be American citizens.

With the passage of this bill, visitors to Canada who are nationals of non-visa-required countries—with the exception of the United States, as I mentioned—will be required to apply for an eTA in order to travel to Canada. This new system will be in place by the spring of 2015.

This is a notable development in the reform of our immigration system and in our partnership with our southern neighbour. Consistent with our beyond-the-border commitments, the new system will address threats to North America and help ensure security in the continental perimeter we share with the United States.

It will establish a common Canada-U.S. approach to screening travellers before they depart their home countries by plane to travel to North America. The U.S. already has a similar system in place: it's called the “electronic system for travel authorization”, or ESTA. The U.S. system has proved to be a great success since it was established in 2008.

Working together, our travel authorization systems will not only help to address possible security threats to North America, but they will also help to ease the flow of travellers who do not pose any potential risk to our countries. That's because we'll be able to identify and screen out inadmissible individuals while they are still overseas, instead of dealing with them once they arrive at a Canadian port of entry.

Here is how it will work. Eligible foreign nationals—individuals who don't require a visa to enter Canada—will be required to make online applications for an eTA before they board a plane to Canada. Our system will then check the traveller's information against applicable databases.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, we will be able to grant travellers an eTA within minutes of applying. A small minority of applications will require additional scrutiny by Canadian visa officers. If a visa officer determines that any given applicant is inadmissible to Canada and therefore ineligible for an eTA, that individual will not be allowed to board a plane to this country.

The beauty and efficiency of this new system is self-evident: it gives Canadian officials the ability to identify and screen out inadmissible individuals overseas instead of dealing with them only once they've arrived at a port of entry. This will have benefits in terms of reduced costs and resources required to process people in Canada. It could also speed up the process of entering Canada for low-risk foreign travellers. Once it is up and running, the eTA should also act as a deterrent to those inadmissible individuals who won't want their information verified before travelling; it will deter them from even attempting to travel to Canada.

Mr. Chair, it's important to stress, once again, that the eTA will only apply to those foreign nationals from visa-exempt countries. For travellers to Canada from visa-required countries, we will continue with the current process of requiring them to apply for visas before they can come to our country. Also, the eTA will not apply to U.S. citizens traveling to Canada, just as the requirements of the U.S. ESTA program do not apply to Canadian citizens.

It's also very important to note that all collection, use and storage of personal information in the administration of the eTA will fully comply with Canada's Privacy Act and the Canada-U.S. privacy principles.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, the government has demonstrated a strong commitment to strengthening the immigration system to make it truly proactive, targeted, fast, and efficient in a way that will contribute to Canada's economic growth and help deliver prosperity for the future. It has also put in place policies that safeguard the integrity and security of that system.

Thank you. We'll be pleased to answer questions that members of the committee may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good morning. I welcome you to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting 59.

This meeting will last from 10 a.m. until 1 p.m. This meeting is televised.

Our orders of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), are to study clauses 308 to 314 in the budget implementation bill, Bill C-45.

We have with us today familiar faces—Mr. Linklater, the assistant deputy minister of strategic and program policy, and his colleagues.

Good morning to you, sir, again. You can make a presentation to the committee of up to 20 minutes.

Thank you for coming, sir.

Financial Literacy Leader Act

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas for his excellent speech. Financial literacy is not easy to explain. His concrete examples and the excellent work he did in his riding allowed him to explain to us in detail the importance of this bill.

I have a background in education. It is indeed very important to educate and inform people and to ensure that information is distributed, present and available to them so that they can make better decisions, whether we are talking about seniors or young people, as my colleague rightly said. As far as young people are concerned, this is important in terms of their retirement and the fact that they have a higher debt load because of their maxed-out credit cards that charge exorbitant fees, for example.

The hon. member also mentioned the excellent work done by the committee. This work is not always easy. For example, in the case of Bill C-45, we should have had independent studies in various committees of the profound changes being made to various laws, instead of depending on the power of the Standing Committee on Finance.

I want to congratulate my colleague and ask him the following question. Does he think the bill will help improve Canadians' financial knowledge?

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, before we depart to our constituencies and events for Remembrance Day where most of us will be participating in remembrance services in our ridings, we will resume third reading debate on Bill C-28, the financial literacy leader act.

The week of November 19 will continue to see a lot of important action at the House committee level, where we are looking at the budget implementation act, Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, as it advances through the legislative process. The finance committee is supported by 10 other committees looking at it and all together they will conclude the review of this very important bill and the very important job creation and economic measures that are laid out, measures that were first put before Parliament back in our March budget.

Meanwhile, on Monday the House will continue the third reading debate of Bill C-44, the helping families in need act, which we started this morning. Given support for the bill from all corners of the House, I hope it will pass that day so the Senate can pass it before the end of the year.

After Bill C-44, it is our intention to take up the report stage and third reading of Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act, which was reported back from the agriculture committee yesterday. I hope we will see strong interest in passing that bill quickly, just as we did for second reading.

Once that bill passes on Monday, the House will return to third reading of Bill C-28, the Financial Literacy Leader Act, if we do not finish the debate today.

That will be followed by second reading of Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act. On Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday, the chamber will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-27, the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, which was also reported back from committee yesterday.

I should also advise the House that on Tuesday when we return from the Remembrance Day week, immediately after question period I will call ways and means Motion No. 14 respecting some technical amendments to tax laws. Let me assure the House that there should be no doubt about this, but the opposition will no doubt be disappointed. This motion will definitely not implement the New Democrats' $21.5 billion job-killing carbon tax.

Finally, on Thursday before question period, the House will resume second reading debate of Bill S-8 and after question period we will take up Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, also at second reading.