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.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for appearing.

Mayor Francis, I will come to you very shortly on the DRIC, but first let me welcome Mr. Marit to the table.

Mr. Marit, you were last in front of this committee in April of 2008 as we were looking at the Navigable Waters Protection Act at length for several weeks back then. In anticipation of Build Canada, we were looking at how we might amend the navigable waters act for greater efficiency while those projects were being carried out. At the time, many of the witnesses recommended a complete rewrite, and I think that now that Build Canada is quite far down the road, we're now looking at that.

I want very quickly to put a question on the intent of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I'm going to quote a witness we had, Ron Middleton, who at the time was the director of environmental management services for the Ministry of Transportation of the Government of Alberta. In his testimony, he said that he had checked this testimony with seven provinces and two territories prior to appearing before committee. Here's what he said:

For much of the 20th century the Navigable Waters Protection Act was only applied to major waterways and major projects across this country. Both the federal and provincial governments assumed that was the intent of the act, and that's how it was applied. As a result, very few approvals were issued for about 100 years.

He's talking about navigable waters permits. First of all, is that your understanding of what the Navigable Waters Protection Act is about? Secondly, in your estimation, do the amendments before us right now in Bill C-45 return it to that intention with great clarity?

[Tony Maas, Director, Freshwater Program, World Wildlife Fund (Canada)]

Thank you, Chair.

My name is Tony Maas. I direct the freshwater program for WWF-Canada. We are one of Canada's oldest and largest conservation organizations. We have staff and offices across the country. In our 40-plus years working in Canada, we have partnered often with governments, business and industry, and others in the not-for-profit sector to protect ecosystems and sustainably manage natural resources.

I am going to limit my comments today to issues related to the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act included in Bill C-45. For reference, that is clauses 316 to 350.

I want to start by saying that I do believe there are some positive amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act proposed in Bill C-45—for example, prohibiting dewatering of any navigable water, and relating to new enforcement mechanisms—but it is my opinion that the positives are quite limited. Overall, I believe, the proposed changes to the act are likely to result in negative consequences for navigation, for people, and for the waters that make navigation possible.

Let me just give you three specific concerns. I'll shorten my presentation a bit, just to allow time for questions.

The first, which we've heard some conversation about already, is the separation of navigation from the health of the aquatic environment. That Canadians depend today—often unknowingly—on the protection of navigation rights as a means for protecting the health of our rivers and lakes is really, in my view, a simple reflection of a natural fact: the two are inseparable.

Picking navigation apart from the waters that enable it is very much artificial. The two are part of a bigger whole. Their separation is as artificial as thinking you can protect a fish without protecting its habitat—the waters in which it lives—or suggesting that our economy and the sustainability of the natural resources our environment provides are unrelated or inseparable.

I do have some concerns in this respect—that the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act proposed in Bill C-45 may leave unforeseen gaps in environmental protections when piled on top of the changes proposed in Bill C-38, in particular changes to the Fisheries Act. The provinces and territories may lack the capacity, including the financial, technical, and human resources, to effectively protect aquatic ecosystems.

More importantly, I think, my deeper concern is what this means inevitably for the health of ecosystems and people. What I am still not quite clear on is if these gaps have been assessed by the federal government, and, if gaps exist, how they are working with provinces and territories to address them.

The second point I would like to raise is the narrowing of the geographical scope of the act to those waters listed in schedule 2 of Bill C-45. Limiting the scope of the act to the country's so-called most significant waterways stands to leave, in my view, a pretty significant gap in protections for navigation and, yes, for the environment in most of the nation's waters. I'm confident in suggesting that most if not all the waters not listed in schedule 2 are frequented by navigators of some sort.

The St. John River in New Brunswick, where we at WWF have an active project, is a case in point. According to schedule 2 of Bill C-45, only the portion of the river that runs from below the Mactaquac dam to the Atlantic Ocean is currently deemed significant for navigation. I can attest that there's certainly navigation upstream of that dam, despite the barrier it presents. There are tourists and recreational fishers who keep houseboat operators and marina owners in business. We are helping send a group of youth down the river by canoe next summer.

All of this, of course, depends quite clearly on the protection of navigation in the waters upstream and downstream of the dam.

[David Marit, President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is David Marit. I'm president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, and first of all I would like to thank the committee for inviting us here to present our views on the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

SARM represents all 296 rural municipalities in Saskatchewan and allows us to act with a common voice for all of rural Saskatchewan. SARM serves as the principal advocate in representing the municipal governments of the province on priority issues, including changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act being proposed through Bill C-45. We are encouraged that Bill C-45 proposes to rename this act the Navigation Protection Act and appropriately refocus the legislation.

The Navigable Waters Protection Act was enacted in 1882 and is creating unnecessary obstacles that are preventing municipalities in Saskatchewan from building cost-effective transportation infrastructure. SARM believes the act needs to be updated to recognize that a significant amount of water transportation on lakes and rivers today is recreational in nature. It is no longer a common means of everyday transportation of goods and people, as it may have been in 1882, when the act was created.

As a result, the existing legislation has become outdated and an unnecessary obstacle to the transportation of those very same goods and people. As currently written, the Navigable Waters Protection Act applies to a very diverse set of waters, including everything from oceans to farmers' ditches. The result is that municipalities in Saskatchewan are often forced to spend time and money to build infrastructure that responds to requirements to accommodate non-existing public water travel. In many cases, this means that municipalities are required to install abnormally large culverts or bridge structures where roads cross water, and they must be large enough for a canoe to pass through.

An example I would like to share with you comes from the Rural Municipality of Insinger in Saskatchewan regarding a bridge replacement project on the Whitesand River. In January 2005 the rural municipality applied to Transport Canada to build a structure to cross the river. In April of that year, Transport Canada determined that the waterway was navigable. This determination was made in spite of the fact that the stream bed was blocked by beaver dams, rocks, and brush, and no one living in the area could recall a canoe ever attempting to travel the waterway.

In July Transport Canada advised the rural municipality that their proposed design for two 2,700-millimetre and one 3,000-millimetre culverts for a total cost of $125,000 did not meet the minimum clearance requirements to accommodate navigation. The RM was also advised that it would need to install a multi-plate culvert that would cost the taxpayers of the rural municipality over $400,000.

To avoid this substantial cost increase, the rural municipality attempted to prove to Transport Canada that the river was not navigable by sending them 56 pictures of barriers to navigation along the Whitesand River. This visible evidence that the stream was not navigable made no impact, and Transport Canada upheld their earlier decision. The RM's hands were tied. The RM then approached SARM in December 2005 to work with Transport Canada for their approval. In February 2006, after many meetings and phone calls, Transport Canada agreed to approve the original three-culvert design. This approval came more than a year after the RM's initial application. This is just one example of many.

SARM believes that the proposed amendments to the act included in Bill C-45 should help mitigate situations such as the one I have just described. The new Navigation Protection Act will clearly list major waterways for which regulatory approval is required for construction projects. It will also allow proponents of construction projects in unlisted waters, such as the Whitesand River, to proceed without approval by the federal government. The list will provide much-needed clarity to municipalities and their residents across Canada.

For years, SARM has been advocating for this distinction, as Saskatchewan municipalities have, for far too long, been required to install larger culverts and bridges to accommodate the passage of canoes and other watercraft, whether it was on a significant navigation route or not. SARM does believe that waters that are used for navigation should continue to be protected and believes the act will do just that. The waterways will all be protected under existing acts.

I will conclude by saying that roads and bridges are the lifeline for commerce and prosperity in Saskatchewan rural municipalities. Removing unnecessary requirements such as those imposed by the current Navigable Waters Protection Act will help ensure that much-needed repair and replacement of the rural road network is done in a timely manner and without unnecessary additional costs. This in turn will help ensure that rural businesses in Saskatchewan remain in their communities and prosper, which of course creates positive economic spinoffs for those communities and for all levels of government.

SARM thanks and supports the federal government for the amendments they are proposing to the Navigable Waters Protection Act as a result of the benefits these amendments will provide to our municipalities.

Once again, I want to thank you for this opportunity to appear today. I'll be pleased to answer any questions.

Thank you.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

These amendments have precisely nothing to do with the environment.

Now, on the issue of provincial consultations, are the provinces aware of the list of waterways that will be covered under the schedule that Bill C-45 brings into place?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Ms. Leslie said that there were only three bodies of water that would be, in her words, “protected” after Bill C-45 is adopted.

Is there anything in division 18 of Bill C-45 that would remove protections under the Species at Risk Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the Fisheries Act, or the Canadian Environmental Protection Act from the other bodies of water in Manitoba?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Division 18 of the existing Bill C-45: that's where the Navigable Waters Protection Act is described and amended. Does that division amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

On division 18 of Bill C-45, what amendments does it bring for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

There are other acts, however, that do protect the environment. They include the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Fisheries Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, and the Species at Risk Act. Will those acts continue to protect nature after this Bill C-45 is passed?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

The point of contention in the Navigable Waters Protection Act is found in division 18 of part 4 of Bill C-45. Is that correct?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Chairperson, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I want to register my deep concern about how this is being rushed through. Basically, we have an hour and 15 minutes to hear witnesses, go through a significant portion of a bill that relates to our committee, discuss what we're going to do, and presumably get something back to the finance committee. It's really a sham of a public process that is taking place here.

These are significant changes. I know it's being presented as though they were just administrative, but the more one looks at this—and of course we haven't had a lot of time to look at it, but the more one does look at it—one can see that there's a bigger picture emerging that is basically a shift of delegation and authority from independent bodies to the minister's office. It's being done under the guise of administration, possibly cost saving, but it does raise serious questions. This is just one small piece of a much bigger puzzle that's taking place.

I make those remarks as my preface to the questions.

Presumably when this was set up in 1988, as you've told us, Ms. McDonald, it was interlocking federal, provincial and territorial legislation. It seems to me that there were likely some reasons that it was construed to be an arm's-length, stand-alone independent agency with its governors and so on.

As I understand it, this change that is taking place allegedly is administrative. Basically the appointments were done before through governor in council, so they were public. It's not clear now that these people will be appointed by the minister, whether or not it will be public, what the criteria will be. We need to get an answer to that.

There's also a lot of concern that previously the commission could instigate independent boards to hear appeals. Now we know that the minister can designate any individual as the chief appeal officer and that the individuals on the appeal boards will have to be suggested by whom? The minister. It seems to me that there's a very conflicting relationship here from what we had, which was an independent board set up by legislation with the provinces, to now a very cozy situation. In fact, one could argue that having a stand-alone commission meant there was some independence from—yes, you're correct—a very complex organization, Health Canada. My concern is that now this will be completely buried and nobody will ever know what's going on because it's so much under the control of the minister's office.

I wonder if you could respond to those concerns and tell me whether or not any consultation has taken place with the provinces and the territories on these changes in Bill C-45. We know that they were very much a part of the process. What consultation has taken place? Now that this body is completely terminated and put under the control of the minister, what do the provinces and the territories have to say about that?

[Shannon Coombs, President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Shannon Coombs, and I am the president of the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association, CCSPA. I'm also a member of the council of governors for the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission.

It's a pleasure to be here today to meet with you and provide a short presentation on our support for the administrative changes included in Bill C-45 for the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission, HMIRC.

CCSPA is a national trade association that represents 42 member companies across Canada, collectively a $20-billion industry directly employing 12,000 people. Our companies manufacture, process, package, and distribute consumer, industrial, and institutional specialty products such as soaps and detergents, pest control products, aerosols, hard surface cleaners and disinfectants, deodorizers, and automotive chemicals.

CCSPA members use the services provided by the government under the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act to formally register confidential business information on workplace safety data sheets, a service that the government has provided since 1985. The work of the HMIRC is about ensuring that confidential business information on the data sheets and health and safety information is not compromised. Both are provided effectively to the workers and to industry.

It's unfortunate that there has been some misinformation in the media about the HMIRC role. In no way is the review of chemicals being eliminated from these amendments. Canada is a world leader with a comprehensive approach to chemical management and assessment of both new and existing substances under the chemicals management plan that was announced by the Prime Minister in 2006 and renewed in 2011.

The administrative changes proposed in Bill C-45 are to house the commission within the healthy environments and consumer safety branch, HECSB, of Health Canada. It's our understanding that these changes will save valuable resources. Currently the commission has its own financial full-time equivalent as well as human resources full-time equivalents. Now they will be shared with Health Canada. Including these services within the Department of Health will result in more integrated coordination with the workplace hazardous materials information system, currently housed at HECSB.

We are also supportive of the continued legislative consultation mechanism, which is appointed by the minister and is comprised of the various stakeholders—industry, labour, employers, and the FPT component. This makes for a very robust consultation mechanism for the HMIRA.

In our opinion, the administrative changes will reduce costs and allow Health Canada to assist in responsible expenditure management in budget 2012. The changes will ensure the health and safety of workers while protecting confidential business information and allowing business to be competitive.

Thank you for your time today. I'd be happy to answer any questions the committee members may have.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Chair, given that we're starting about 45 minutes late because of the vote, and I know that we have witnesses here that we're eager to hear, at the last meeting we had some discussion that we might continue with further consideration of Bill C-45. We had put forward the names of four witnesses. I don't know whether they were contacted, but we would like to see witnesses other than government officials and from the industry. I think it's important we hear other perspectives as well.

I just want to make it clear that if we try to shorten the witnesses' appearance today, I don't think that's a good idea, because we have a number of questions we want to ask. Therefore, I would like to move, based on the fact that we are late starting, and that we're not going to get through this in an hour and 10 minutes, that we go to November 20—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Chisholm.

Is there anything further on the motion?

It has been moved by Mr. Chisholm that we ask our witnesses to stay for an additional 30 minutes, from this point.

(Motion agreed to)

I hope that works with your schedule.

I will point out that I did provide a bit of leniency on the scope of the questions in the first part of our meeting in the sense that I did lay out very clearly at the beginning of the meeting that questions would be around clauses 173 to 178 of Bill C-45. I would ask members to please keep your questions to that subject matter.

I don't like to have to rule anyone's questions out of order. I like to provide as much opportunity for people to get to their point. However, when we do ask witnesses to stay beyond what was originally intended, I don't want to inconvenience anyone either.

The first questioner will be Mr. Kamp, from the Conservatives.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just as a brief clarification on the new paragraph 40(3)(a) of the post Bill C-38—basically the section that says you need to comply with the condition of an authorization—how is that going to be affected by the changes that are made here in Bill C-45?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

We have some committee business to deal with.

I might say that, in my view, we can now take a letter to the finance committee, which is seized with the jurisdiction of actually considering the clause-by-clause of this particular bill and entertaining amendments that they may or may not pass. This committee's job would be to have reviewed the process and the clause-by-clause, free to make any recommendations or any proposed amendments. That's as far as we can go.

I would propose to take a letter to Mr. Rajotte on behalf of this committee, thanking him for his letter inviting our committee to consider the subject matter of Bill C-45 and other measures, and more specifically the subject matter of clauses 219 to 232.

There are basically, in my mind, two options. One of the options would say that, after hearing from the witnesses and considering the provisions contained in clauses 219 to 232, the committee wishes to inform him that it has no amendments or recommendations to forward to the standing committee. Or, in the alternative, it would say that it does submit the recommendations and amendments attached.

Those are the two options. I'm open to a motion for either option or to hear discussion on those matters before a letter is drafted.

Ms. Leitch, go ahead.