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.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

I assert that the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities lacks the authority from the House to propose amendments to Bill C-45 or to issue a report to the Standing Committee on Finance, and therefore we should not hold this farce of a clause-by-clause hearing. What we have here is a bastardization of the process.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to also express my appreciation for the minister and his officials for being with us today to discuss the matter of judicial compensation set forth in the second budget implementation act, Bill C-45.

Minister, as you are aware, section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act stipulates that bills must be checked for compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. My question is, by what standard was this bill vetted for charter compliance?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Mr. Cotler.

I did listen closely to what you had to say, and I've certainly taken advice from the clerk, but I do not have the letter in front of me. We've asked for it to come over.

First, I would say we weren't tasked with anything from the other committee. We were asked to look at it, to make recommendations, and to send back proposed amendments. We're not doing a clause-by-clause this morning. It's a study of the subject matter of clauses 210 to 218 of Bill C-45. We were asked to do this. As a committee we could have said at the last meeting that we did not wish to do it. The committee decided that they did wish to hear the minister, and we set aside today for it.

On that basis, I believe that the intervention does fail in that this is not going to be reported back to the House. It is only by recommendation that we send it back to the finance committee. As I say, we could have decided as a committee last week that we didn't wish to do it, but we did go ahead with it.

I think we should hear from the minister.

[Kevin Stringer]

Thanks for the question. I'll start with why it was in there, why we included it. Then I'll explain why we think the proposed version in Bill C-45 is better.

When it was being decided what fisheries we wanted to ensure were protected, we wanted to ensure that we were protecting all fisheries that are fished by Canadians. That certainly includes commercial and recreational fisheries, regardless of whether they're fished by aboriginal groups or by others. But we knew that if we just said “commercial and recreational fisheries”, that wouldn't cover everything we wanted to protect. We wanted to make sure that we were protecting food, social, and ceremonial fisheries, but there are a number of land claims in place that have used the word “subsistence” fisheries, which is not necessarily covered by either “commercial and recreational” or “food, social, and ceremonial” fisheries.

So the language that was proposed and adopted in Bill C-38 said that we would be protecting food, social, and ceremonial fisheries and subsistence fisheries. That was specifically to pick up the land claims agreements that use the language “subsistence”.

It was pointed out that future land claims agreements may use different language from “subsistence”, so we wanted to make sure we were covering whatever is in a land claim agreement with respect to fisheries. As a result, we used the broader term of anything else that is in a land claim, as opposed to just “subsistence”, so taking the very specific piece...in addition to which there was some confusion about what “subsistence” fisheries might cover. We thought it would be clearer to say that it was anything in a land claim, and more broad with respect to what we were trying to protect.

[Kevin Stringer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Oceans Science Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thanks very much.

We have very brief remarks to start. I am joined today by David Balfour, who is the senior assistant deputy minister for ecosystems and fisheries management, and by France Pégeot, who is a senior assistant deputy minister for strategic policy. I, the thorn between two roses, am Kevin Stringer, the assistant deputy minister for ecosystems and oceans science.

We have a few opening remarks, and then we will be happy to answer any questions you may have with respect to the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act that are included in this bill. These proposed amendments are pursuant to the Fisheries Act amendments that were made in the former Bill C-38, the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, which was passed in June.

Specifically, the proposed amendments in Bill C-45 are very targeted and focused. There are very few of them. For the most part, they are to provide greater legal clarity and more legal certainty regarding some of the Fisheries Act amendments that were approved in June.

The former Bill C-38, therefore, is the context for this act. You will recall that the original amendments to the Fisheries Act provided in that bill provided for a regime that focuses on protecting Canada's commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries—a regime that provides protection from serious harm to those fisheries, which would impact on their ongoing productivity; a regime that addresses managing threats to those fisheries, from challenges to habitat to aquatic invasive species and other threats; a regime that provides enhanced tools for compliance and protection of those fisheries; a regime that enables partnerships with provinces, territories, conservations groups, and others, so that our work at DFO can be better aligned with their work to achieve better results in terms of overall fisheries protection for Canada.

The amendments in Bill C-45 for the most part seek to provide greater legal clarity and certainly with respect to a few of those elements that were in the previous bill. I should note that most of the significant changes that were included in the Fisheries Act amendments that were passed and adopted in June have not yet come into force. Some of them are in force, but the most significant ones—the focus on commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries, the focus on serious harm, and the focus on ongoing productivity of fisheries—are not yet in force. It is proposed that should the further Fisheries Act amendments proposed in Bill C-45 be adopted, they would come into force at the same time that the previously approved amendments come into force.

This initiative amends the Fisheries Act and the Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act to provide legal clarity to previous amended sections and to provide a transitional authority for existing authorizations for harm to fish habitat.

For example, a provision is added to section 40 to direct all fines collected under section 40 of the Fisheries Act to the existing Environmental Damages Fund, to be used for proactive initiatives to further advance the protection of Canada's fisheries.

There is also a proposed amendment to the definition of “aboriginal” with respect to fisheries, which effectively replaces the term that was in Bill C-38, the term “subsistence”, with the term “purposes set out in a land claims agreement”. This will help to ensure that we are clearly capturing the responsibility to protect fisheries that are defined in current and future land claims agreements.

With respect to fish passage, it is proposed that sections 20 and 29 of the Fisheries Act be amended to provide greater clarity so that it's clear that the main prohibition in the Fisheries Act—section 35—applies to fish passage. It applies to barriers to fish, dams, etc.

There are also transitional provisions to clarify that if we provided an authorization under the previous act, that it continue under the current act, and there's an opportunity for people who are subject to the conditions of those authorizations to have that tested against the new prohibition requirements.

With that, that's a high-level overview of what the changes are, and we're happy to take any questions from the committee today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I call this meeting back to order. As I was saying earlier, this committee is convened today for the study of the subject matter of clauses 173 to 178 of Bill C-45.

I want to welcome our guests today. We have officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Mr. Stringer, I believe you are going to lead. I would ask you at this point in time for any opening comments you might have. If you want to introduce your associates with you here as well, that would be terrific.

Thank you very much. The floor is yours, Mr. Stringer.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a point of order this morning. Once we have reviewed the documents that have been submitted to us—

I would like to assert that this Standing Committee on Justice lacks the authority from the House to propose amendments to Bill C-45 or to issue a report to the Standing Committee on Finance, and that therefore we should not hold this farce of a clause-by-clause hearing.

I would like to remind this committee of where we as a committee derive our authority to do the things we do. We derive our existence and our authority from the House of Commons itself. The House creates our committees specifically through Standing Order 104, and the Standing Orders further regulate how our committees are constituted and governed under Standing Order 106. The House also sets out the specific mandate of each standing committee under Standing Order 108.

An excellent summary of this regime can be found in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, commonly called O'Brien and Bosc, on pages 960 and 962, which say, referring to standing committees:

They are empowered to study and report to the House on all matters relating to the mandate, management, organization and operation of the departments assigned to them. More specifically, they can review:

the statute law relating to the departments assigned to them;

the program and policy objectives of those departments, and the effectiveness of their implementation thereof;

the immediate, medium and long-term expenditure plans of those departments and the effectiveness of the implementation thereof; and

an analysis of the relative success of those departments in meeting their objectives.

In addition to this general mandate, other matters are routinely referred by the House to its standing committees: bills, estimates, Order-in-Council appointments, documents tabled in the House pursuant to statute, and specific matters which the House wishes to have studied. In each case, the House chooses the most appropriate committee on the basis of its mandate.

The key word is still the "House".

Please note that all abilities cited in this citation flow from the House, not from another committee.

So let us look at what we have here with Bill C-45. On October 18 this year, following the adoption of ways and means motion number 13, the Minister of Foreign Affairs moved on behalf of the Minister of Finance that Bill C-45 be read a first time and be printed. On October 24 the Minister of Public Safety moved that Bill C-45 be read a second time and referred to a committee, and after using time allocation, the debate on the second reading of Bill C-45 ended with the passage of the following motion on October 30 this year.

The motion, which passed, read: that Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures “be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance”.

As a matter of record, Hansard, on October 30, specifically quotes the Speaker as saying “I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance”— immediately following the passage of the motion in the House.

The reference of this bill to committee was always only to the finance committee. The motion passed in the House only referred to the finance committee. This is important. Under the legislative process that the House of Commons follows, a bill can only be referred to a single committee, the committee assigned by the House itself. This does not preclude any other committee from studying the subject matter of the sections of this omnibus bill.

The official opposition has always advocated that this bill be split up and effectively studied. The official opposition actually proposed a series of motions in the House to split this bill, using the same method as was used to pass Bill C-46, the MP pension plan provision. Sadly, the House did not adopt those motions.

Those motions would have allowed this committee to actually study the separate bills, which would have been referred to them. Then each committee could legitimately hold hearings, calling a variety of witnesses with multiple viewpoints, and, after hearing these points of view on the sections of the bill referred to them, could have formulated reasoned amendments for debate and decision in a clause-by-clause meeting. Then the decision of the committee would be reported to the House in due course.

Traditional practice of committees to allow witnesses to be called from a variety of sources is being overridden by this fake belief that our committee will somehow have a meaningful clause-by-clause consideration of the parts of the bill referred to us by the finance committee. We are being asked by the finance committee, not the House, to study and propose amendments to a bill on such a short timeline that there is no opportunity for reasoned debate. What we have here is a bastardization of the process.

I wish to relate to you all one line from O’Brien and Bosc, which I will repeat later on, on committee reports. On page 985, it states:

In the past, when a committee has gone beyond its order of reference or addressed issues not included in the order, the Speaker of the House has ruled the report or a specific part of the report to be out of order.

In the past, when a committee has gone beyond its order of reference or addressed issues not included in the order, the Speaker of the House has ruled the report or a specific part of the report to be out of order.

I submit to you, as the chair, that the finance committee is unable to refer any parts of Bill C-45 to anyone. Its only duty is to study this bill and to report back to the House with or without amendment.

Let me review quickly how a committee is supposed to deal with a complex bill referred to it by the House after a second reading.

Normally after passage at second reading, the committee that received the bill would organize its time, call for a variety of witnesses based on the lists provided by the recognized parties in proportion to their representation at the committee, hear the witnesses, formulate amendments, schedule a clause-by-clause meeting, call each clause, hear amendments to the clauses, vote on the amendments and the clauses, and then vote on the bill. The results of these decisions would then be reported to the House.

The House, in its wisdom, has even provided a mechanism to allow for variation on this normal progress of a bill through committee, which it called a “motion of instruction”. If I can call again on O'Brien and Bosc, this time under their chapter on the legislative process, on page 752, it states:

Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as, for example, examining a portion of a bill and reporting it separately, examining certain items in particular, dividing a bill into more than one bill, consolidating two or more bills into a single bill, or expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill. A committee that so wishes may also seek an instruction from the House.

If the government were interested in following the rules of this place and wanted to have a variety of committees study this bill, then it could have moved to instruct any variety of these committees to conduct a review of the portions of the bill, allow amendments to those portions, and report them separately.

The power to authorize this variance in the legislative process rests with the House of Commons, not the finance committee. Because we have not received any order of reference from the House and because there has been no instruction from the House subsequent to the passage of the bill at second reading, I submit to you that it is out of order for this committee to have any vote on any amendment relating to Bill C-45.

I also submit to you that this committee has the right to initiate a study on the subject matter, but we don't have the authority to report to another committee, only to the House.

While committees have the power to meet jointly with other committees, a report from a joint committee must report only to the House, not to another committee.

I would like to quote again O'Brien and Bosc, from page 983, wherein referring to a joint committee it says:

If a report is adopted during a joint meeting, each committee may present to the House a separate report, even though the two reports will be identical.

I also refer you to the same chapter, on pages 984 and 985, where it covers how a committee reports to the House. It says:

In order to carry out their roles effectively, committees must be able to convey their findings to the House. The Standing Orders provide standing committees with the power to report to the House from time to time, which is generally interpreted as being as often as they wish. A standing committee exercises that prerogative when its members agree on the subject and wording of a report and it directs the Chair to report to the House, which the Chair then does.

Like all the powers of standing committees, the power to report is limited to issues that fall within their mandate or that have been specifically assigned to them by the House. Every report must identify the authority under which it is presented. In the past, when a committee has gone beyond its order of reference or addressed issues not included in the order, the Speaker of the House has ruled the report or a specific part of the report to be out of order.

We have rules for committees that show that committees receive their authority from the House. They also say that committees report their information to the House. The request for us to somehow become subcontractors to shoddy work by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance should not be given any credence.

I suggest to you, Mr. Chair, that our job is to hear witnesses on Bill C-45 and to report findings to the House.

I do not believe we should entertain any amendments to Bill C-45 because the bill was never envisioned by the House as being dealt with by any committee other than the finance committee.

I furthermore submit that it flies in the face of all of our basic principles of being a committee if we agree that committees should receive their mandates from another committee and should then report to that committee, rather than to the body that gives us authority, the House of Commons.

I refer you to the letter that authorizes us to carry out this farce this morning, this letter that was sent by the chair of the—

Standing Committee on Finance.

The chair, James Rajotte, wrote the following to you, Mr. Chair:Our Committee is currently studying Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures. Please find attached a motion adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance on October 31, 2012, inviting your Committee to consider the subject matter of clauses 206 to 209 of Bill C-45.

These clauses concern the Judges Act and certain amendments.

The letter continues:

The adopted motion also invites your Committee, if it deems it appropriate, to provide us with recommendations, including any suggested amendments.... Therefore, I invite you to send me recommendations, including any suggested amendments, of your Committee by letter, in both official languages, no later than 5 p.m. on Tuesday, November 20, 2012. Our Committee will consider them during its clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill. Finally, if your Committee decides not to suggest any amendments, please notify the Clerk of the Standing Committee on Finance in writing as soon as possible.

I thought I had seen everything, under this government. But receiving mandates from other committees is taking the farce of consultation a little too far. I detest wasting my time, given all the work that we are going to be asked to do.

Usually here, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we do serious work, and we take our mandates seriously. We make serious recommendations and propose serious amendments, and we do not take part in a joke of a consultation that is utterly meaningless.

This is the point of order that I wanted to raise to the committee and to you, Mr. Chair, in this context.

I'm sorry, Mr. Minister. I didn't want to make you lose your time. But these are extremely important issues. Procedures apply in this House, and if we start cutting corners to give a clear conscience to the government, which refused to divide its mammoth bill, that isn't our problem. We do not have to take part in this monumental farce.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I call the meeting to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are undertaking study of the subject matter of clauses 210 to 218, respecting the Judges Act, of Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.

Appearing before us is the Honourable Ron Nicholson.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I call this meeting to order.

I'd like to thank the officials from DFO for joining us today. As per the orders of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are studying the subject matter of clauses 173 to 178 of Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.

Mr. MacAulay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Good morning, everyone. I call the meeting to order.

I will give some overview comments before we hear from our officials.

We have with us today, from the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lenore Duff, senior director, strategic policy and legislative reform, labour program, and Charles Philippe Rochon, manager, labour law analysis.

As you know, we received a letter from the chair of the finance committee inviting our committee to consider the subject matter of clauses 219 to 232 of Bill C-45. The letter essentially invited our committee, if it deemed appropriate, to provide them with recommendations, including any suggested amendments. We do have with us today Christine Lafrance, who's a legislative clerk, should we need her later on in the meeting.

It's up to this committee in terms of what we propose to do after the hearing. I've looked at the notice of motion from the finance committee. Essentially, they leave it up to us to suggest whether we want any amendments or not. The decision will be theirs as to whether or not the amendments ultimately will be in order and considered in their clause-by-clause consideration of the far larger bill of which this forms a part, and they've referred specifically to us those portions that relate to the Canada Labour Code and specifically the sections that they reference in their motion.

My view was that we would get an overview of those particular clauses from the officials. Then I was suggesting to this committee that we have them go through each of the clauses. Then, in a way that is a bit different from the normal practice, where we have opening rounds, I would leave it up to the members who have questions to put those questions as we go through the clauses, without any particular order. We will recognize a speakers list to go through those questions. If we have time at the end of all of that, we could open it up to some rounds of questions, but it might be more productive if we were to go through it clause by clause and raise any questions.

That is the way I propose to proceed, subject to any further direction of the committee.

Mr. Boulerice, do you have a point?

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, today I am going to talk about the government's decision to eliminate the experimental lakes program, or to do away with it. I think that decision is catastrophic.

Research on the quality of our water is critical to Canada. The development of the oil sands and the resulting pollution and contamination due to mining operations, not to mention acid rain and so on, are increasingly important stressors for our lakes and rivers. And we are not even talking about the risk of environmental accidents caused by offshore oil and gas development. It is hard to understand why this government has decided to axe a program that was contributing to Canada's reputation abroad.

The program includes research on blue-green algae, on the impact of climate change on our lakes and fish habitat, and on the impact of contaminants on the lakes' biodiversity. The studies being done by scientists in 58 lakes in their natural state are unique and cannot be replicated anywhere else in the world.

Why? Because it is the only place where research is done directly in the lakes, in constantly evolving complex ecosystems rather than in laboratories. Scientists around the world know this very well. That is why they criticized the cuts from the very outset. In Canada, more than 20,000 people signed the petition to continue the existing public experimental lakes.

Why eliminate this program? The government's answer is that it wants to save money. And yet the Conservatives estimate the savings generated by this decision at only $2 million, when closing the lakes will cost $50 million.

This irresponsible decision by the Conservatives will cost us $48 million and threaten the quality of our waterways.

Canada recently announced that it had signed an agreement with the United States on monitoring water quality in the Great Lakes. Will the government be able to meet its international commitments if it cuts all research programs like the experimental lakes program?

The cuts at Fisheries and Oceans Canada will affect hundreds of scientific jobs all across Canada. In Bill C-38, the first mammoth budget implementation bill, the government took the axe to the environmental assessment process. There were over 3,000 fewer environmental assessments this summer. Bill C-45 goes after lakes and rivers. There are now only 97 lakes and 62 rivers in all of Canada that will continue to be protected. All the water quality monitoring mechanisms are being ditched, one after another.

And then the government goes and tells our neighbours to the south that we will monitor the water quality of the Great Lakes. It is completely absurd.

In addition to axing water quality monitoring programs, the Conservatives are gagging scientists. Scientists working on the experimental lakes program cannot talk publicly about what is going on or explain the impact of the cuts on their research program. Tom Muir, who was formerly a biologist with Environment Canada and who is now an independent researcher, found that there was politicization of research within the department.

Scientists can no longer explain their research findings. They have to refer all questions from the media to the department’s communications branch, staffed by employees who are trained to dish out propaganda rather than scientific facts.

Today we learned that Environment Canada research conducted on the oil sands was censored once again. Scientists at the University of Alberta discovered that contamination levels in snow and rain near the oil sands extraction sites were much higher than average.

Here the department made the researchers use a series of canned responses when speaking to the media. In most cases, the scientists were not allowed to answer media questions and had to refer all interview requests to the departmental communications people. We can no longer ask questions, and the public has no right to know whether our lakes and rivers are being polluted.

I have a question for the minister or the parliamentary secretary. What will happen to our Experimental Lakes? Will the program be privatized?

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

Just to be clear, will these measures in Bill C-45 apply to the current collective bargaining negotiations?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Since I am running out of time, I would like to talk about the board itself. You are saying that the board has been suspended under Bill C-45. Yet clause 454 says that the board is dissolved.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On page 146 of budget 2012, it states that, “Over the next few years, the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board...will continue to set the rate.”

Bill C-45 obviously does the opposite. It stops the board from setting the EI rate, and it gives that power to cabinet.

When did the government change its mind or decide to break its promise in budget 2012 and hand over the board's power to cabinet?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

So the board established a rate that it submitted to the Minister of Finance for approval. And the board will be abolished as soon Bill C-45 receives royal assent.