Bill C-1 (Historical)

An Act respecting the Administration of Oaths of Office

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We're going to have to ask them back, because we didn't deal with divisions 9, 12, or 14. We'll see if we can, but I doubt if we can.

I have one motion I want to put forward if somebody can move it. “That the evidence and documentation received during today's committee meeting in relation to its subject matter study of Bill C-15 be deemed received by the committee in the context of its legislative study of Bill C-15”.

[Trevor McGowan]

No, they're separate measures.

This is actually more closely related and is a purely consequential amendment to the introduction of the new top marginal rate. The proposed amendments that you mentioned that deal with the donation of proceeds from the sale of real property or private company shares to a charity were announced in budget 2015, and two were to have become effective in 2017. They've not been included in the bill and they were never enacted. In budget 2016, the government announced its intention to not proceed with those proposed amendments.

The proposals in Bill C-15 are unrelated to those. What they relate to is, as I said, further consequential refinements to the charitable donation tax credit that followed from the introduction of a new top marginal rate. Individuals can obtain a charitable donation tax credit in respect of their gifts. Currently—and this is not proposed to be changed—it's 15% on the first $200 of gifts. Previously, and previous to Bill C-2 and this, it's $29% on gifts in excess of that.

Those sets of proposed amendments provided, back in December, a set of rules that—to the extent you're an individual and you have income in the top marginal bracket so it's now taxed federally at 33% instead of the 29%— effectively, given the old rates, gave you a deduction. For people who are taxed at lower rates, it provided an incentive.

For people who have income in the top marginal bracket that is subject to the top 33% rate, the Bill C-2 amendments would provide a 33% tax credit. Following up on the government's announcement, those amendments that are in Bill C-2 provided further refinements to that policy, specifically for trusts. As I mentioned before, most trusts are actually subject to flat taxation, so all of their income is taxable at the top marginal rates.

What these amendments would do—as well as, in fact, replace what is in Bill C-2—is provide that, if you have a trust that is subject to top flat-rate taxation, it can access the new 33% tax credit to offset its income that's taxed at the top rate. It doesn't have to be income in excess of $200,000, because their first dollar of tax is taxed at 33%. It ensures that trusts have the same incentive to donate as high-income natural individuals.

Second, it provides that, in situations where you have a trust, a taxation year can straddle the end of 2015. It starts in 2015 and ends in 2016. It, for that year, can be subject to the.... That might be the case for a graduated rate estate where an individual dies mid-year. It can be subject to the top marginal rate of 33% on its income for the year. This would provide that gifts made before 2016—in the first part of that taxation year that straddles the year-end—can qualify for the new higher 33% tax credit as well, so that they get an effective deduction against their income taxes for those gifts.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I agree with Mr. McKinnon. This really is a critical part of our exercise. Of course, NDP-2 would have dealt with the language that you rightly say would be eliminated, but that is a matter of style. It is critically important that it be included, but we had that forward as another way of doing it.

I would like to note and to thank Mr. Oliphant for coming. He was a superb co-chair of the Senate-House committee, and that was the committee that recommended we don't define it, for reasons that are articulated in that report, which I won't repeat.

I would like to repeat, however, that Mr. Arvay, the counsel; Mr. Ménard, from the Quebec bar association; and the Canadian Bar Association have all pointed out the problems with this bill.

I would like to read what the Canadian Bar Association wrote to the Senate on May 4:

The CBA Working Group does not believe that this definition is consistent with the criteria established by the SCC in Carter.

Nor do I. Nor does Mr. Arvay. Nor does Mr. Ménard. We have had no independent legal opinion. The Department of Justice's perspective was, with great respect, advanced unsuccessfully in the court. Now we have amendments that would undercut, in the name of certainty. Mr. Casey tells us that somehow this would not provide clarity.

With all due respect, I heard two doctors on Cross Country Checkup, one saying Kay Carter would be covered, one saying she wouldn't. Is that clear? We have “reasonably foreseeable” language, which has been the subject of ridicule across the country, and to suggest that this provides clarity is simply inappropriate.

Last, to say that this would do harm will be contrary to the policy choices of the government in Bill C-14. I would like to remind the committee why we are here. We are here to put meat on the bones of a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada decision. This does not do that. It undercuts that. With great respect, I simply disagree, and I hope people will be persuaded that we have a job to do. We have to apply the law of the land, and this does not do it. The Canadian Bar doesn't think so. The counsel who argued it doesn't think so. Mr. Ménard doesn't think so. I hope you will agree that it can't be done. In the name of clarity, it certainly doesn't do the job.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

With respect to the centres of excellence that have been announced, I guess to some extent a bar has been placed with respect to what they'll be doing at these centres of excellence. Have you given any thought as to how to enhance that, how to raise the bar, with respect to the centres of excellence with the recommendations that are to be part of Bill C-10?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Was the government's intention to introduce a bill like Bill C-10 to enable Air Canada to be discharged from proceedings addressed during one of those meetings?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Scher, you've expressed concerns about the limited safeguards in the bill and you would like judicial oversight to be in place under Bill C-14.

I question the practicality of that in terms of the backlogs in our court system, the costs involved, and the time. What additional safeguards would satisfy you to keep this with the medical professionals and move away from judicial oversight? In other words, medical practitioners in the bill's view would be the ones who would carry out the procedure.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Ms. Gokool, you had a very provocative introduction in which you said that if Carter is the floor for physician-assisted dying, we're now in the basement. Then you named Linda, Ronald, Drew, and Jean Brault, who, you said, were excluded under Bill C-14.

Is it your evidence that they would be allowed to use medical assistance in dying, under your interpretation of the Carter case itself?

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

I do agree that this has to be taken seriously. The Speaker has ruled that the premature disclosure of the content of Bill C-14 impeded the ability of all members to perform their parliamentary function. We can't minimize what has been a decision of the Speaker of the House.

To have at least the same thoroughness that we've seen from previous questions of privilege of this nature is important, and that would mean probably at least four meetings; there's no doubt about that. I think that for putting together the witness list, in looking again at previous cases we can see the pattern: the department, the minister, is called in; the member who raised the point of privilege is; as well as potentially the law clerk. Those are all important witnesses to bring forward.

The area in which I think we're coming to some consensus is in agreeing that we'd be doing this as a committee after the family-friendly study is completed. I sense from the other parties that this is the direction we're going in. We have a good sense of a time line: we have a June calendar that is empty, which should allow us to schedule the number of meetings that takes this with the seriousness with which the Speaker has referred it to this committee.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

To Dr. Boer, you noted in your response to my colleague Mr. Fraser that you had grave concerns with the “reasonably foreseeable” language. You said that “reasonably foreseeable” had no specification.

What would you suggest, then, when you spoke of a requirement of life expectation? It wasn't clear precisely what you thought we might do to change that very vague expression in Bill C-14?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

He's very passionate.

Look, the Conservatives said at the outset, and I said in my speech, Mr. Chair, that we were going to work with the government to meet the timelines needed on Bill C-7. I think that the minister, in consultation with senior leadership, has given strong consideration to all elements of Bill C-7, including exclusions.

We heard repeatedly, even from very pro-union association members, about the unique nature and the paramilitary nature of the RCMP and how those operations are critical to our public safety and public security, and that has to be considered as a unique element for the bargaining environment.

I'll also remind members and Mr. Blaikie of what we heard from witnesses. I remember the gentleman from the Quebec association. I asked him how many of his best friends from Depot are now management—inspector and above—and three of four in his group are. I say that because the unique nature of the chain of command means that this isn't a typical management-employee relationship. They wear the same uniform. They have the same concerns.

Also, it doesn't matter if you're the commissioner or another senior leader; you have concern about the operational safety of all of your people, whether you've met them or not. That's the inherent aspect of uniformed service that is consistent among the military, police, firefighters, and paramedics, and we have to recognize that part here.

We've heard from some people who have frustrations with management. Of course, but this is a unique environment where they could be alongside a senior leader in a precarious situation, and I think everyone would agree that regardless of rank, there is a compassion for the men and women they serve alongside, for their comrades, and that has to be part of this consideration.

They will never cut corners on safety. I know that. We can have a whole range of concerns and things like that, but these exclusions were carefully considered and I think are appropriate. Also, once a framework is done, there's nothing to preclude future Parliaments from examining other issues, but I think that as we start off, this is an appropriate balance, given the unique need.

Finally, I share Ms. Damoff's concern about harassment. I think all MPs do. We want to make sure that cases are resolved and there's no fear about attracting more bright young women into the force. I will say that the minister is seized with it. I will say that I think the RCMP is seized with it. We're going to continue to see progress and can push for more progress.

I do think we need to exclude it, because then any element of the operational nature of the RCMP—a posting, a promotion, a disciplinary matter—will be framed as harassment. Some may well be, but I think we can start to continually improve and strengthen the system for investigation, for discipline, and for a culture of openness about it without putting this in. I really think that will impact operations in terms of a grievance process and that sort of thing. I think we can still really push on that issue without putting it back into this bill and potentially disrupting the operational structure of this paramilitary force.

For those reasons—and my colleagues may want to weigh in after management as well—we'll be opposing the amendment.

[Rae Banwarie, President, Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada]

Good morning, honourable members of the parliamentary committee, Chair.

My name is Rae Banwarie. I am the President of the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee regarding Bill C-7.

I have been involved in the pursuit of collective bargaining and unionization of the RCMP since 2007. MPPAC is a national, non-profit police association comprising regular members and civilian members of the RCMP in every region of the country. We're seeking to become the certified bargaining agent for all non-commissioned members of the RCMP.

I will begin by speaking to some of the amendments we would like to see in Bill C-7 that are found in our brief, which everybody has. We are compared to civil servants in this piece of legislation. The restrictions found in Bill C-7 are from the PSLRA. Why, is the first question? We are not civil servants, yet we're being compared to civil servants. We are a national police agency and should be compared to large police agencies like the OPP, Sûreté du Québec, Toronto metro, Vancouver PD, or Winnipeg Police.

I'll talk about some of the points on page 2 of our brief. As everyone knows, and has been made painfully aware, we continue to lose members of the RCMP. We've had incidents like Mayerthorpe, Moncton, and St. Albert. The list goes on and on. In all of these incidents the components of inadequate resourcing, inadequate training, and inadequate equipment have caused death and injury to our members. The recent four charges still pending in Moncton support this fact.

Why would we have a collective agreement that will continue to place our members' safety and that of the communities we police at risk? When we undermine the member resourcing, the equipment, and the training by not having proper measures in place to safeguard these critical parts of our policing, we're placing our membership at risk and everybody in every community that we police at risk.

We're seeking to have minimum staffing levels. For example, article 22 of the collective agreement of one of the biggest police agencies, the Toronto Police Service, talks about minimum resourcing. That's contained in the brief. We're looking for the ability to have that covered in the collective agreement.

We are also seeking to remove the reference to equipment and their restrictions on the scope of bargaining found in this bill and to add new provisions to address this in a collective agreement. We have amendments that we suggested on page 3 of our brief.

We conducted a national survey for our membership. We did a snapshot of approximately 1,000 members: our members and civilian members who are not part of MPPAC. We have the results, and 94% of the membership we surveyed say they want this as part of their collective agreement: just this one point. That's significant.

I'll move on now to harassment. Canadians sadly have become aware of the issues of harassment, which continue to plague the RCMP. There is a class action in the certification process in British Columbia with over 400 past and current female members of the force. There is another class action led by Linda Davidson, which is seeking $500 million in damages.

There have been multiple cases over the past decades of harassment. Why would a significant issue such as this—which has caused harm to our members and led in many cases to PTSD, sickness, depression, occupational stress injuries, and in some cases, suicides—not be brought under a collective agreement, so that it can be dealt with in an open and transparent manner? Binding arbitration has a potential component for redressing these situations, just like our core values in the RCMP of transparency and openness.

Without harassment being included in the collective agreement, we are essentially assisting in furthering this issue and allowing it to reproduce and flourish in the RCMP. This issue goes directly to the culture of the RCMP, and we have to address it. If we don't address it, we're setting up our organization to continue to fail.

We must delete the reference to “including harassment” in proposed paragraph 238.19(c) of this legislation that we're studying today. I believe it can be brought and should be brought under a collective agreement so we can start to mitigate it and deal with it.

Our recommendations are found on page 3 of our brief.

That is my portion. I will turn the rest of the presentation over to Lee Keane, my director.

Canada Labour Code

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member always has very insightful questions in this House.

I cannot put myself in the shoes of the new government, and I certainly would not want to be in those shoes. However, if we look at the first 100 days—and there is a snazzy video out on the first 100 days—we can see the legislative agenda.

Bill C-1 is a formulaic administration-of-oaths bill; Bill C-2 was tax increases and the elimination of the TFSA; Bill C-3 was a massive injection of spending, in large part to cover a promise on the Syrian refugee resettlement; Bill C-4 is the unwinding of labour modernization from the previous Parliament, clearly a quid pro quo for support during the election; and Bill C-5 is undoing the sick day negotiation with the public service.

If we look at the legislative agenda of the new government in the first 100 days, it is tax, spend, and support the friends who got them into office. Contrast that with the previous government's first 100 days. There was the Federal Accountability Act, child care benefits for all families, and a GST reduction. It was about giving back to Canadians, not taking away.

Income Tax Act

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague mentioned income inequality, which is a very important issue for me and, I am sure, for my colleagues as well.

In my opinion, Bill C-2 does not do enough on that front. When Bill C-1 was introduced, we proposed a technical amendment, which would have been very easy to adopt. It was rejected. We wanted to reduce the tax rate on the first income bracket from 15% to 14%.

Everyone probably has their own definition of middle class, but it seems that the government has a rather broad definition. In my opinion, reducing the tax on the first taxable income bracket would have been better for the real middle class. In the NDP's plan, the people who would have saved the most tax by year-end would have been those who earn $45,000 a year.

Therefore, I am very disappointed that our plan was not accepted, because Bill C-2 will not help the middle class, but rather the upper middle class, if I may call it that.

Oaths of Office

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-1, an act respecting the administration of oaths of office.

(Motions deemed adopted and bill read the first time)

Committees of the House

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the previous unanimous consents, I rise to seek the unanimous consent of the House for a motion related to the Prime Minister's tabling yesterday of pro forma Bill C-1, which symbolically asserts the supremacy of Parliament and the authority of the House to deliberate and take decisions.

The government is accountable to the House for its actions, as Bill C-1 signalled. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister may need more than Bill C-1 to remind him of this.

Accordingly, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion, which reaffirms what the House previously adopted in 2010, and which I had also placed on the order paper before prorogation ironically killed the motion.

I move that the House reaffirm its expressed will and support of the motion moved by Jack Layton on March 17, 2010, that in the opinion of the House, the Prime Minister shall not advise the Governor General to prorogue any session of any Parliament for longer than seven calendar days without a specific resolution of the House of Commons to support such prorogation.

Let there be no mistake that the government and the Prime Minister have not honoured the will of the House as expressed in March 2010. Canadians deserve better than democracy with dishonour.