Bill C-1 (Historical)

An Act respecting the Administration of Oaths of Office

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.

(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It is great to be able to join this committee this morning.

I want to thank each of the folks who have come to testify before us. I appreciate that there are three farmers, two business owners and a pharmacist. Your input is very valued here. I appreciate your making the trip and taking the time to share your expert opinions. Your opinions are valuable, and it is appreciated that you have come to be a part of this very important democratic process to ensure that Bill C-4 gets the review required.

I think there is large agreement across the country that free trade is important, that we need to have a strong trading relationship with our international partners, but the various perspectives that have been presented here today emphasize how important it is to have proper oversight and review of this legislation to ensure that Canadians understand the impacts.

My question will be focused on Mr. and Mrs. Erickson. Acknowledging the reality of free trade.... When it comes down to it, the role of a pharmacy as a part of the health care system is ultimately about making sure patients in this country have access to the care they need in order to get healthy, to be treated properly.

Does either of you have further thoughts about the impact of drugs being sold to the United States? Could you elaborate on how that affects your day-to-day operations? Also, for the benefit of committee members, help us understand what options there might be to address this in the future, so that folks can be aware of how serious an issue this is.

[Carlo Dade, Director, Centre for Trade and Investment Policy, Canada West Foundation]

Good afternoon.

Madam Chair and committee members, before I start, I would like to thank you for inviting me to appear before you in order to present some viewpoints from the west. They are not just about NAFTA, because everyone is well aware of how important it is.

Instead, I'd like to talk about some of the things that need to be considered in our framework for understanding the agreement and in going ahead as the committee debates and, indeed, as the country looks on and debates participation in the new agreement.

The Canada West Foundation, as I'm sure the committee is well aware, was created 50 years ago to lend a voice to the western provinces, to facilitate the participation of the west and to facilitate the contributions of the west to the making of a strong Canada. A strong west is a strong Canada, and today, 50 years later, we realize that some of those debates have never gone away, and the Canada West Foundation remains engaged in them.

We are also one of the organizations most implicated on the trade file, given the importance of trade for the west. You will have seen our work on issues such as Bill C-69. Before it was a national issue, Canada West was there. You will have seen our work in forming the changes to the legislation.

On trade, we modelled the impact of the trans-Pacific partnership trade agreement on the Canadian economy before the federal government did. We continue this advance work. We are modelling the impact of the CPTPP on our trade infrastructure. Even though the government did this for CETA and has chosen not to do it for the CPTPP, the Canada West Foundation has stepped up to do this because of the importance of the agreement for the country, not just for the west.

On NAFTA, I have three points to consider quickly. These lead to my recommendations for action, about which I won't go into detail, because you have them in writing.

First is the rush toward normalcy in thinking about our relations with the Americans simply because we have an agreement. We have seen, time and time again, from the election of Donald Trump through his handling of diplomacy to his conduct of trade, a complete destruction and remaking of how the U.S. does foreign policy, diplomacy and trade policy.

Let me give you one example with this agreement itself. It's usually the process, with a trade agreement, to improve conditions of trade. Parties agree that there are things that can be done to improve conditions of trade, and they agree to meet, either starting from scratch or building on an agreement. We did this in North America. We updated the North American trade agreement to modernize it, to bring it into the 21st century, to take care of labour issues and intellectual property. We had a win-win situation, where all parties made concessions, and all parties were happy with the results. When Donald Trump came in, that was ripped up and we were told that win-win no longer works; what works is “I win, you lose.” Starting from this point is unprecedented in trade negotiations. We had no choice, and the government did the best it could—I think the best that anyone could. Hats off to the government for the job it did under those very difficult circumstances.

That is just one indication of how upended the world in which we are now trying to function is on the trade front. We see the U.S attacking the World Trade Organization. We can't proceed with our old ways of thinking, or our old frameworks, when looking at this agreement. Every witness you have has to tell how the agreement, and their interpretation, fits into this new reality.

Let me give you one example of something we are worried about. Yes, we have an agreement, and Brian is absolutely right: for those areas where the President does not pay attention, or pull the rug out from under us, or change the rules, the agreement will work. It is much better than not having an agreement. The modelling of the trade agreement done by others shows that the agreement is a net economic welfare loss for all three countries. The only thing worse is not having an agreement, which is an even greater economic and GDP welfare loss. I suggest you call in Dan Ciuriak, the modeller here in Ottawa. He does the modelling for Canada West. He used to work for Foreign Affairs. He can fill you in on the details of the modelling. That's a conversation I would strongly urge you to have, to get to the bottom of the modelling numbers and what they show.

Moving on to the statutory authority of the President, we have never seen a president exercise the four or five statutory provisions that the president has to manage trade. These are provisions delegated to the president from Congress.

We saw the steel and aluminum tariffs, Canadian steel and aluminum declared a national security threat. This is not the worst of what the President can do. There is more.

At the end of May, we woke up to see the following from the White House, and this is the White House statement:

As everyone knows, the United States of America has been invaded by hundreds of thousands of people coming through Mexico.... Mexico's passive cooperation...constitutes an emergency and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States.... To address the emergency...I am invoking the authorities...[in] the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Accordingly, starting on June 10, 2019 [less than a week after this announcement was made], the United States will impose a 5 percent Tariff on all goods imported from Mexico.... If the crisis persists...the Tariffs will be raised to 10 percent on July 1 [basically three weeks or 21 days later].... Tariffs will be increased to 15 percent on August 1, 2019, to 20 percent on September 1, 2019, and to 25 percent on October 1, 2019.

This is the threat that hangs over us should the President decide to ignore the rules and use the statutory power he has. This is something that really needs to be taken into consideration. We need to realize that the signing of the agreement is not the end of our fight on trade with the Americans and trade in North America. It's not even the end of the first period.

This is going to be a long-term game. We are going to have to step up the extraordinary efforts we made to build alliances in the States to prevent this type of situation. We do not fight this in Ottawa with the ambassador. We fight this in Boise. We fight this in Springfield. We fight this in Sacramento. We fight this at the state level where premiers work with our counterparts as governors, and MLAs work with their counterparts at state legislatures. It's imperative that we not drop the ball and think of this as mission accomplished.

The second point, very quickly, is that there are parts of this agreement that I think we really don't understand. I would highlight article 32.10, the article dealing with negotiating with non-market countries. The provision itself isn't problematic. We announce when we are going to negotiate and we have to share as much text as we think is possible—these are not onerous or unusual provisions.

But what is a non-market country? What did we agree to when we agreed that we would give the Americans these powers with non-market countries? We think it's China, but the Americans have a list of 11 countries—10 plus China. Who else is on that list? Well, Vietnam was on that list, and we dodged a bullet by getting the TPP done with Vietnam before the Americans were able to use this for mischief. Again, I would urge the committee to look at article 32.10. Do we fully understand it? Can the government fully explain it?

Regarding cultural exemptions, we've granted the Americans the right to impose countervailing duties should we invoke our abilities under the cultural exemptions. Michael Geist just had a long piece on this. I would urge you to call Michael, Wesley Wark and others, to really go into that.

As for the points I raise in the recommendations, we have to help the provinces do their job in terms of defending our interests in the States. During the negotiations, the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister asked the provinces to do more. They stepped up.

The government gave money to ACOA to help the Atlantic provinces do more vis-à-vis the States. We haven't gotten the same in the west, and the west could really use the support. In a time of financial constraints, in a time of budget cuts, we are being asked to do more, and we don't have the resources, so we really could use the feds to step up.

There are also possibilities to engage the Americans on a bilateral basis for things that we couldn't do with the Mexicans at the table. The greatest failure of this agreement was not to advance provisions for moving business people. We can engage the Americans bilaterally, especially at the state-provincial, the regional level.

In terms of an infrastructure bank, the infrastructure idea is one where the Americans really need help. We can step forward and offer them help, and in so doing create a permanent institution with the Americans to avoid the vicissitudes of political changes and the changing political climate, and have a permanent institution focused on the North American border.

I will leave it there for questions.

Thank you very much.

[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)

Customs Act

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion dealing with the Senate's amendments to Bill C-21.

The story of Bill C-21 is long and highly problematic, not to say sordid. I will read some excerpts, but first I would like to say that I am naturally in favour of the Senate's amendment. I will explain why.

The story of Bill C-21 is an interesting one, because it was a bill tabled almost three years ago.

It is unfortunate. I am thinking in particular of the No Fly List Kids, a group well known to members of this house. It is a group of parents who have children on the no-fly list who are false positives, because they share a name with an individual on this list who has been flagged.

The reason I raise this issue is that when these parents originally came to Parliament Hill and asked the government to respect commitments that had been made to fix this issue, they were told by the government, and the Minister of Public Safety more specifically, that they would have to lobby the Minister of Finance, because it needed money to the redress system. They did that. They talked to the Minister of Finance. It was fantastic. The money was announced in the last budget. It was a non-partisan effort I was proud to be part of.

Then what happened? We heard that Bill C-59 needed to be adopted, an omnibus piece of legislation dealing with a whole slew of national security elements, one chapter of which, in a bill hundreds of pages long, dealt with the no-fly list. Conveniently, we were saying that the bill needed to be facilitated at the time the bill arrived in the Senate, and it was being held up there.

How does this connect to Bill C-21? Allow me to explain. The Minister of Public Safety's press secretary made one thing clear to the media: the money is there, and Bill C-59 must be passed.

As the months passed, Bill C-21, which was introduced in the House nearly three years ago, also got held up in the Senate. A month or two ago, at the same time the parents of the no-fly list kids were lobbying the Senate to quickly pass Bill C-59 and fix this horrible problem, the same spokesperson for the Minister of Public Safety said that Bill C-21 also needed to be passed more quickly. After three years, and one year in the Senate, the bill finally passed.

I do not want to cast doubt on anyone's good faith, but there is a problem, because I see nothing in Bill C-21 to address this scourge, which has been around for too long and makes life hard for these parents whenever they take their kids to the airport. This debate gives me the opportunity to say this to the House, because even though these parents are a non-partisan group, I am a partisan politician, and so I have no qualms about criticizing the government for trying to exploit this problem to rush its legislative agenda through. If it had done its work properly, the bill would not have gotten held up in the Senate the way it has.

With that point made, I want to address more specifically the amendments from the Senate. I am pleased to see that the Senate has improved on an amendment I presented at the public safety committee that was supported by all colleagues. My amendment was to actually prescribe a retention period for the data Bill C-21 would deal with at the border.

Just to give the background on this, the New Democrats opposed Bill C-21, despite some things in the media I read in June saying that the bill quietly passed in the House. No, we opposed this bill, and we raised some serious concerns about it at committee.

One of the concerns raised by the Privacy Commissioner was the fact that we would be collecting entry and exit data at the border and sharing with the Americans “tombstone“ data, as the Minister of Public Safety morbidly calls it. That data is concerning, because what we are seeing in the national security field, and CBSA is no exception, is a larger net being cast over the type of data we collect. The minister listed a bunch of laudable goals for collecting data dealing with kidnapped children in, for example, horrible custody cases, dealing with human trafficking and cracking down on people who are abusing EI and the OAS system. We will get back to that in a moment.

These goals, certainly on paper, sound laudable. However, that should not diminish the privacy concerns being raised, particularly with respect to the current administration we see in the U.S. collecting this type of information. What civil society tells us about these issues is that there is a web of inference. In this large net being cast in the national security field, data that might seem innocuous, collected for legitimate purposes, can be easily shared with other agencies through this information-sharing regime for a variety of objectives that might not necessarily be the intent of the legislation.

In that context, we heard the concerns that the Privacy Commissioner raised about the data retention period, which was essentially unlimited. The amendment I presented set a time limit of 15 years and was based on a recommendation from the commissioner himself. I read in the media that civil society felt that period was too long. I understand their concerns, but ultimately, we relied on the Privacy Commissioner's expertise.

After my amendment was adopted and the bill was passed by the House, in spite of the NDP's opposition, the Senate heard testimony from the Privacy Commissioner. He pointed out that the wording of the amendment as adopted could be interpreted to mean a minimum of 15 years rather than what we actually intended, which was a maximum of 15 years. He himself said that this might not have been the committee's intent.

The Senate therefore made a correction and improved an amendment that I was pleased to present. I was also pleased to have the support of the other parties on the committee. Obviously, we support the Senate amendment.

The amendment put forward by the government today also supports that amendment. Accordingly, although we oppose the bill, we do support today's motion to adopt the Senate's amendment.

I want to take a moment to address this. I raised some of the concerns at the time on Bill C-21. Earlier I enumerated some of the things the minister said. However, there is another piece, and that is the issue of OAS and EI.

We had the appropriate ministry representatives at committee. They talked about all the great savings they were going to see and about the abuse of the EI and OAS systems. I find it fundamentally offensive to talk about savings in systems and programs that are there to help the most vulnerable in our society. The officials at committee even acknowledged that they believe in the good faith of the people who are claiming EI and receiving OAS.

Here is the problem. I will refer to some news articles that appeared in June of this year. For example, the Canadian Snowbird Association talked about its concern about the kind of information, or lack thereof, being shared, the personal information being shared, in an effort to potentially crack down on supposed abuses. For example, a situation as innocuous as people overstaying a day in a condo they own in the U.S. could mean that they would have their OAS payments or other government programs docked when they came back to Canada, in some cases. On the flip side, with the IRS in the U.S., people are being turned away at the border when they try to return to the U.S. to visit friends or family or to stay in a secondary residence they might have there. Certainly, there are concerns being raised.

I want to open some parentheses here and say that the NDP certainly understands and agrees that we do not want to see these systems abused, because essentially that would mean money is being stolen from those who actually need it. However, we also have to understand that when we are talking about information-sharing in an effort to crack down, I think there need to be more robust parameters in place with respect to how we are communicating with those individuals who could be affected.

Another concern I have obviously has to do with the employment insurance system. I am sure my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and my colleague from Churchill—I apologize, but I forget her riding's full name, which is long—can attest to how badly the EI system needs to be improved.

We are talking about the spring gap, the notorious 15 weeks, the problems that still have not been solved despite the government's rhetoric. What does the government do? It sends officials from the department in question to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security so they can boast about all the money being saved by sharing additional information on travellers with the Americans.

I do not mean any disrespect to our interpreters, but I am going to repeat what I said earlier in English. I completely understand that the government wants to stop the abuse of the system and make sure that the money is going to the right recipients. At the same time, I also understand that priorities seem to be a problem for this government.

It is funny that I talked about the no-fly list at the beginning of my speech. The minister was bragging about the fact that very few identifiers are shared in the system that Bill C-21 is proposing. He talked about basic information and said that that information appears on page 2 of the passport. This creates another problem, because when there are not enough identifiers, it can be very difficult to identify an individual in the context of a government program, the Canada Revenue Agency, and so on.

I need to look no further than in my own family. My younger brother's spouse has a twin sister with the same first initial, but a different social insurance number. They have the same surname, the same birth date and the same first initial, but a different SIN. What happens? They have to fight on a regular basis to have their identity recognized when undergoing a credit or background check. They have all kinds of problems with the CRA, government programs and banks. In short, they have had problems in the past. Unfortunately for them, they will continue to have these problems throughout their lives. Still, I hope they will not.

I am pointing this out because having only a few identifiers, as the minister reassures us, can create problems. For example, someone receiving EI who has not travelled to the United States, but who shares the same name and date of birth with another person who has, could be incorrectly identified by the department, which is not even the same one that receives the information. The Canada Border Services Agency receives the information, which it then passes on to the Department of Employment. As members, we work often enough with government agencies to know that mistakes can be made along the way. I say this with all due respect for our great public service.

Those mistakes are even more troubling for a variety of reasons. First, I specifically asked those representatives in committee about EI, OAS and other payments. I asked them what they would do if there was a mistake, or what if people had their EI cut off because they were told they had gone to the U.S., but they had not. The response I got, if people can believe it, was that they would need to take it up with CBSA.

What happens with CBSA? It is the only national security agency in the country that does not have a dedicated oversight body. Is that not convenient? That is extremely problematic and a far from satisfying response when the most vulnerable, who desperately need EI benefits, are cut off all because of a mistake was made in an effort to share even more information with the U.S., at its request. This whole system stems from that.

Moreover, I pointed out that there was a complaint system built into the law, but CBSA needed the proper oversight. The minister has promised that time and again over the last three years, since he has responsibility for this portfolio, and it has not happened.

Bill C-59, for example, would result in the biggest overhaul to our national security in the last 30 years. Despite all the reassurances about the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, the new oversight body, colloquially called the super-SIRC, would only deal with CBSA in the specific context of national security. CBSA is always deals with national security at our borders. However, the question could be posed whether it is an issue of national security when people have their EI cut off because of information collected by CBSA. That question remains unanswered. The fact that it is unanswered is exactly why we have a problem, among other things, with Bill C-51.

I want to raise one last point. Representatives of the Akwesasne First Nation came to both to the House committee and the Senate committee. The community lies across border. Representatives explained to us that they had children who were born in upstate New York and then lived in Canada. They had folks who sometimes worked in the U.S. Sometimes they needed to start in Canada, go through the U.S. and come back to Canada just for the commute home because of the geography of their location. I am pleased to hear they can cross those borders, because those borders should not be imposed on them as the first peoples of this land.

They already deal with certain difficulties, based on the information CBSA shares with appropriate ministries for different government benefits, with receiving the benefits to which they are entitled. Therefore, we can imagine that under a regime like that proposed in Bill C-21, those problems could be exacerbated. Unfortunately, there is no special dispensation for folks like that in the legislation, and that is also a concern.

In conclusion, I am glad I was able to reiterate the reasons for which the NDP opposes Bill C-21. We understand the desire to improve the flow at the border, work with our allies, and ensure that nobody abuses our social programs. However, we believe that Bill C-21 allows for yet more information sharing, despite inadequate protection for citizens' rights and privacy.

We should all be particularly concerned about the fact that Bill C-21 is the first stage of what could become a more extensive information sharing regime in the coming years. The Prime Minister and the U.S. President committed to enhancing border co-operation, but this is not going to make things better. This is about fingerprinting people, searching cell phones, and possibly even having our officers and theirs work in the same space. That came up during talks between the U.S. President and the Prime Minister.

All of these plans are still in their very early stages, and I do not want anyone telling me I am getting worked up and scared, but we have every reason to be concerned, especially considering how the current U.S. President behaves and how we protect our citizens at the border and on our own soil when they need social programs they are entitled to.

The bill's intentions are honourable, but the execution is poor. We support the Senate's amendment, but we still oppose Bill C-21.

Impact Assessment Act

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-69 on a new impact assessment and environmental assessment process.

I must begin by saying a few words about the approach to adopting this new process. Cloaked in righteousness, the Liberal government set to defending democratic institutions. It sought to give MPs their power and their voice back, respect the work of Parliament, and break from the Conservatives' despicable practice of cutting debates short. The Liberals said they wanted to give MPs time to do their work in order to represent their constituents well.

However, bad habits die hard, and closure has been imposed more than 40 times already. These are what we call time allocation motions that seek to limit the time for debate.

It seems that this bill is important to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. However, the Liberals imposed closure at every stage. At first reading, at report stage, and now at third reading, they gave parliamentarians a maximum of four or five hours before closing debate. We were promised, hand on heart, that a Liberal government would never do such despicable, undemocratic things. It has now become routine.

My Conservative colleague, who is a member of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, said that the government was bragging about having collaborated, studied amendments in committee, and listened to the opposition. It also brags about the fact that about 100 amendments were adopted in committee to improve the bill. Congratulations. I just want to point out that 99% of the amendments adopted were Liberal amendments. I have no doubt that that makes things easier.

It is mind-boggling to think that the bill was so poorly drafted and cobbled together, right from the start, that the Liberals were forced to present about 100 amendments in committee to try to patch it up and repair the damage. The bill lacked clarity and was poorly crafted, so it needed a lot of clarifications. That gives you an idea of the process, since government members are almost never required to fix a lousy job from the minister's office.

I would now like to talk about timeframes. It took the government 28 months to come up with a bill for a new environmental impact assessment process. During the campaign, the Liberals said that it was a priority because Canadians lost confidence in the process when it was destroyed and dismantled in the previous Parliament. They claimed that the Conservatives' process turned away from science and that we urgently needed to restore a transparent, valid, and scientific process that people could rely on. It took 28 months to come up with this bill.

During these 28 months, the government continued to sit back and to use the previous Parliament's process, a process that was supposed to be terrible.

What did the government do in the meantime? For one thing, it authorized the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline, which was Kinder Morgan's priority. How convenient that is for the government. When it wants a project to go ahead, it holds off on establishing a more serious, more credible, more scientific, and more rigorous process. The government used the tool left behind by the Conservatives, a means of fast-tracking and rubber-stamping projects, and was thus able to approve everything and anything.

The Liberals go through the motions of sticking a few bandaids on so it appears different, but they are not fooling anyone. Once again, the government used what it once criticized. This is more proof of the Liberals' hypocrisy.

The Trans Mountain expansion was approved in November 2016. It is now June 2018, and we are once again discussing the new environmental assessment process. Halfway through their mandate, the Liberals still have not passed a bill because they keep dragging their feet, citing consultations. The Liberals had no problem speeding some things through; a more rigorous process would have gotten in their way.

They broke their promise to assess the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion under a new environmental assessment process. While in British Columbia during the election campaign, the Prime Minister swore that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion would never be assessed under the Conservatives' rules, yet that is exactly what happened. He also promised to change the voting system and institute democratic reform. It seems to be a bad habit of his. When he solemnly swears something, look out because he is about to flip-flop.

We have a new agency that is based on the old environmental assessment agency, but with more powers and a bigger role. It will be above certain commissions, like the National Energy Board, which will become a commission. That is a step in the right direction we had been waiting for, but we are still concerned about the fact that two organizations we have heard little about, which will exist alongside the new impact assessment agency of Canada, will be getting much more authority and a bigger role. I am referring to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.

These two boards are separate, independent assessment committees that are responsible for assessing any drilling that may occur in marine environments, in the oceans, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, potentially, or off the coast of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. That troubles us, because the mission of these two boards is to promote offshore oil and gas development. Their job is not to protect the environment, the seabed, ecosystems, or endangered species. It is to promote oil and gas development off the coast of certain provinces.

This flies in the face of everything the government says about how much it cares about the environment and its claims that it is here to protect our oceans, our natural resources, and our ecosystems. In itself, that is a total contradiction. We in the NDP find this really troubling, and I doubt we are the only ones, judging by the spontaneous reaction of the Green Party leader, who is just behind me.

When you tell a story, there is a beginning, a middle, and an end. It is not complicated. That is what kids learn in school. I want to talk about those three stages in the context of Bill C-69. In the beginning, a decision has to be made as to which projects will be submitted to the new agency for assessment, because all of this has to be good for something. If it is decided that the project will not be assessed because it is not worth it, everything in Bill C-69 and everything that was said about public consultations, indigenous consultations, and considering reports from climate change experts—all of that goes out the window.

As things now stand, and the minister confirmed it in her speech, Bill C-69 does not establish a list of projects. It also does not set out any clear, definitive, and verifiable criteria that would allow us to determine which projects require an environmental assessment. There is nothing about that at all.

From the start, there has been a very serious grey area. The agency can arbitrarily decide for itself what it considers to be important or unimportant.

It is all well and good to have a good process, which as we will see is not as good as all that, but if that process is never used, then it does not do anything more to protect us as Canadians, as people who are concerned about the environment, ecosystems, and global warming.

Take the following oddity, for example. The bill states that if the project is deemed to be a major project, it will fall under the responsibility of the new assessment agency. If it is deemed minor, then it can be reviewed by a commission, such as the National Energy Board. What is the difference between major and minor? There is nothing in the bill about that, so we do not know.

There are things like the steam-based oil sands development technology called “in situ”, which has been completely left out of the scope of the bill and any new environmental assessment. The government says it will not look at it even though it is an increasingly common technology that could have serious impacts. Those impacts could be relatively minor, but for the people living in the indigenous community or the town involved, it does not necessarily take a thousand-litre spill or a huge amount of pollution to jeopardize their health, pollute their environment, or cause a public health issue.

There is no clear explanation for why in situ bitumen extraction was excluded. Knowing what gets assessed and what does not is just the beginning. There are a lot of vague and arbitrary elements. There is very little clarity, and that is what worries us. That is the first problem.

The second problem is with the middle part, the public consultations, the dialogue with indigenous communities, and the appointment of review panels to do the scientific environmental assessment.

Consultations are another novelty of the Liberal process, and on that topic, assessment timeframes are being shortened. Depending on the size of the project, they will drop from 365 days to 300 days. That means that we will lose 65 assessment days. For major projects, the process will drop from 720 days to 600 days, for a loss of 120 days. This Liberal decision was taken in direct response to the demands from investors and private companies.

The decision worried many environmental, indigenous, and citizen groups. They do not understand, if we want a credible, serious process we can trust, why the government is adopting an attitude where it seems to want to expedite things as quickly as possible and satisfy the desires and needs of the industry first and foremost.

The Liberal government is also saying that first nations will have a greater role to play in the assessment process. Connect the dots to what I just said. If we greatly shorten the timeframes of a project and process, it is rather unlikely that there will be enough time to conduct extensive consultations with first nations. Again, they say one thing, but in fact there is a good chance that nothing will come of it or that the process will be flawed or absolutely incomplete.

That is what we know about the duration, the timeframe of the process.

The second aspect is the appointment of these experts we have been talking about to the panels that will carry out these ostensibly scientific, environmental impact assessments. There are many groups, including the Quebec Environmental Law Centre, that are concerned about the fact that the Liberal plan has no mechanisms to ensure that these will not be partisan appointments, that Liberals will not appoint their cronies, and that panel members will not be prone to making recommendations or a report that merely reflects what the government wanted from the start.

It is a simple process that is already in place in other jurisdictions. I am thinking of BAPE in Quebec, which is well regarded and credible, and has this type of mechanism. Here, we get the feeling that the Liberal government would allow the appointment of people who will not really care or who will listen to what the government says and wants.

It is really not that surprising. If I have time, I will come back to Kinder Morgan and the absolutely ridiculous purchase made recently.

While public consultations were being held on the Trans Mountain expansion, while first nations were being told that they were being listened to, that it was important, that they really wanted to hear their perspective, it became apparent that a decision had already been made. The government was already looking for excuses and reasons to legally say that the decision was made and that it would be approved.

Phony consultations were held very recently, and I believe that people should be concerned about the possibility of these partisan appointments to the expert panel.

After the beginning and the middle, we get to the end. Let us say the project has been assessed. Let us say the consultations lasted long enough and were sufficiently credible, although perhaps a bit limited. Let us say the experts really were independent, they did their job diligently, and they prepared a report with recommendations based on science, social licence, the impact on climate change, our ecosystems, and so on. After all that, it is completely up to the minister if he or she wants to dismiss all the recommendations of the impact assessment agency. All of that good work, even if it is perfect—and we already have some misgivings about that—could very well be taken and tossed into the trash, and the project could be deemed in the national interest and approved.

The national interest is being tossed around a lot these days. It can be made to mean pretty much anything. A majority government can simply declare something to be in the national interest since it knows that it can force it through the House either way, and everyone else will have to deal with it. I think it would be in the national interest to listen to experts, scientists, Canadians, and first nations. When the minister of the day has all of this discretionary power, the process can become arbitrary. Say that you like the current Liberal government, and that you trust its environment minister. That is fine, and I am sure there are people out there who feel that way, but once a bill passes, it will not change with every cabinet shuffle, with every federal election, or with every change in government. Things could turn pretty quickly under someone who has a different style or vision of development. I am really being very kind to the sitting minister, who has the instincts of an industry minister rather than those of an environment and climate change minister. Incidentally, anyone claiming to champion environmental protection and the fight against climate change should not go out and buy a 65-year-old pipeline that is already leaking everywhere.

I would like our Liberal colleagues to take out their 2015 electoral platform and show me the part where they told voters they wanted a pipeline so badly that they were prepared to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to buy one if necessary and that Canadians would have to assume all the risks associated with such a project. Let us be clear, Kinder Morgan deemed the project was too high risk. The current Prime Minister even acknowledged that no private company wanted to take on these risks because legal challenges have been filed by British Columbia and many of its first nations.

There are difficulties and challenges with respect to our international commitments under the Paris Agreement and our greenhouse gas reduction targets. The project simply does not make sense. We will be spending at least $12 billion on infrastructure that might be worthless in 25 or 30 years. On top of taking a huge financial hit, we will have invested in the energy source and jobs of the past, when we could have been investing in renewable energy. Those types of investments create six to eight times more jobs. The Prime Minister would have become a leader with a vision for the environment and for sustainable development. Sadly, that will never happen.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-69, an act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, introduced by the Liberal government.

As members no doubt know, this bill would create a new impact assessment agency of Canada to replace the Canadian Environmental Protection Agency. This agency will be responsible for all federal reviews of major projects and will have to collaborate with other agencies, like the new Canadian energy regulator, currently known as the National Energy Board, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and offshore offices.

As a citizen and as member of Parliament for Lévis—Lotbinière, I have always taken an interest in protecting our waterways and keeping them safe. The prestigious St. Lawrence runs not too far from my home, and all of these issues are close to my heart. This is one of the reasons our Conservative government amended the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in 2012.

I obviously have many concerns about Bill C-69, in particular about the merits of these amendments and the Liberal government's flexible ethics. The government claims to be accountable and transparent. In reality, the Liberals keep showing that all they care about is helping Liberal cronies and promoting Liberal partisanship by filling their party's coffers, from coast to coast, under some guise or other.

On the surface, this bill has the noble goal of ensuring that all projects will be assessed on the basis of their impact on the environment and health, and on social issues. However, we may need to cry foul on the practices of these good old Liberals, masters of all that is crooked and scandalous. Take, for example, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard and fishery allocations for a highly valued shellfish.

Where things go downhill with the Liberal government is that it puts forward these bills that give ministers more discretionary power, and then issues around the economy and so-called gender and indigenous rights take a back seat to the financial interests of the highest bidders and people with Liberal connections.

The government loves nothing more than a taxpayer-funded spending spree and thinks it can reinvent the wheel. This bill lays out its plan to spend up to $1 billion over five years on the new regime, on necessary changes, and, ostensibly, on increasing the participation of indigenous peoples and the general public.

Let me once again point out that these objectives look very similar to those of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, who we hope will soon be under investigation.

We all know that the former Conservative government knew how to make things better without raising Canadians' taxes. Canada's Conservatives understand how important certainty, predictability, and regulatory clarity are to ensuring the viability of major energy projects.

We know that these projects create tens of thousands of jobs and benefit communities across Canada, without any political favouritism. With the Conservatives, solid economic policies do not come at the expense of solid environmental policies, or vice versa.

Greater prosperity and better environmental performance always go hand in hand, but all the Liberal government sees are enticing opportunities to dole out goodies to friends and family members.

Bill C-69 will create two new regulatory burdens that, combined with the pointless federal carbon tax, will hurt Canada's global competitiveness even more without improving environmental protection in any way. This is scandalous.

These fresh repercussions are troubling, as are so many others we have suffered since this perpetually failing Liberal government took office.

The Liberals have a very long way to go before the next election if they want to start defending Canada's natural resource industry properly, instead of throwing up one roadblock after another.

Fortunately, in accordance with our values and commitments, we, Canada's Conservatives, will continue to oppose costly regulations that hurt jobs, economic growth, and global competitiveness.

Bill C-69 does not in any way meet the Conservative Party's objective of always striking a balance between protecting the environment and growing the economy.

When we look at what is happening with our neighbours, it is appalling to see that, while the American administration is relaxing regulations, lowering taxes, and encouraging energy production from natural gas or coal, Canada is regressing.

We cannot hamper our competitiveness by tightening regulations and creating uncertainty around the environmental assessment process. We need to stand up against and do away with any bill like this one that would harm Canada's economic competitiveness.

On this side of the House, we firmly believe that, in order to be effective, economic and environmental policies must not contradict each other, undermine each other, or cancel each other out. All the empirical evidence shows that prosperity brings with it a better environmental record. It is one thing for the Prime Minister to embarrass us and lose all credibility in our eyes and the eyes of the world, as he did on his trip to India, for example; it is quite another, however, for him to put Canada at a political disadvantage and jeopardize our position in the global economy. We will not allow him to do that.

We have repeatedly seen his picture in every situation and costume imaginable, but what we are interested in and concerned about on this side of the House is not Superman, it is Canada's image, its role, its prosperity, and the well-being of all Canadian families.

I am worried about how this bill will be used to determine whether a project should undergo an assessment by the agency or a panel. Beyond the process that has been set out, the answer is very easy and predictable. The assessment process will remain very political because it is the minister who will determine whether it is in the public interest for a project to be submitted to a panel instead of the agency's shorter impact assessment.

I am also concerned about why the government is saying that the bill will shorten the assessment process for resource projects. The government is misleading Canadians by saying that project assessments will be shorter. The planning phase adds 180 days to the process, even if the impact assessment is a bit shorter.

What is more, Bill C-69 provides for broad ministerial discretion to extend or suspend the process. In the Consultation Paper on Information Requirements and Time Management Regulations, a proposed impact assessment system, the Liberal government recognizes that in some cases, the proposed time limits in the legislation will not be met. In light of this discretionary power that will undoubtedly be abused, there is very little we can support in this legislative measure.

We support in principle the process providing for one assessment per project, as well as the commitment on the time limits proposed under the legislation. However, the bill puts up regulatory barriers and additional criteria that will invariably lengthen the assessment period.

We oppose Bill C-69 for many reasons, including the fact that it establishes a number of new criteria for impact assessment, in particular the impact that the project will have on Canada's climate change commitments. From now on we will have to consider the environmental impact upstream and downstream. The bill also substantially increases the number of people that could intervene in a review even if they do not have specific expertise. Finally, at the end of the planning phase and at the end of the impact assessment, the minister or the cabinet will make the final decision. The process remains political in nature, which creates ongoing uncertainty for investors.

There is nothing in today's announcement that would increase investor confidence or attract new investment to Canada's resource sector. We know that Canadian companies are already facing stiff competition even as the United States implements its plan to reduce regulations, cut taxes, and invest in coal-fired and natural-gas-fired electricity in order to cut energy costs.

Canadian businesses deserve a government that works with them, not against them. Canada's approach to fighting climate change must be realistic and strike the right balance between protecting the environment and growing the economy. The Conservatives support regulation, investment in clean technologies, and the mitigation of climate change if these initiatives produce concrete and measurable results for businesses and the environment.

We do not see any guarantees here.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-58. Actually, that is what I was supposed to talk about, but the government has given me yet another opportunity to talk about its closed-mindedness and lack of transparency by moving another time allocation motion, this one for a bill that has to do with access to information. How ironic.

I am very glad to have the chance to speak after my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, who chose to talk about things that happened in the past. His eloquence and his legendary speaking skills in Parliament are well known to us all. There is a reason he has said more words in the House since the beginning of the session than any other member. He has been more vocal than anyone else during this Parliament as well as during the previous one. I believe that, more often than anyone else, he condemned the Conservative government's time allocation motions, which it did use to get its legislation through. The parliamentary secretary once had some choice words about democracy, the work of parliamentarians, and how outraged he was about time allocation motions.

This government was elected on a promise not to use time allocation motions, in order to allow for full debates. It was elected on a promise of basic openness and transparency. It promised it would be open at all times and would sometimes say no. The parliamentary secretary was the spokesperson of that election campaign.

What have we here today? In two years, this government has broken the previous government's record on using time allocation motions. It has used them on a number of very important files, including marijuana legalization, a subject that Canadians wanted to hear more about. Canadians represented by members on this side of the House wanted them to take the time to express their views on the matter. I am also convinced that many people represented by members across the way would have liked them to speak and fully explain their thoughts on Bill C-45 about marijuana legalization instead of repeating government talking points. Unfortunately, the government has used time allocation yet again, as it has done in so many other cases.

Speaking of flashbacks, the parliamentary secretary should also flash back to the eloquent speeches he gave in the last Parliament. They might inspire him to add to today's debate on time allocation motions. In his presentation, he also talked about the past Conservative government that saw the light on proactive disclosure. The Conservatives in government at the time adhered to that policy. Unfortunately, today's Bill C-58 takes us back to the dark ages. I am not the one saying this, it is the Information Commissioner. I will come back to her in a moment.

If the Liberals saw the light while they were in opposition, the light has unfortunately gotten steadily dimmer since they came to office, and we are heading for total darkness. The parliamentary secretary boasts that Bill C-58 will be open to periodic review. This morning I heard it called a “living document”. However, I wish the government had given life to something better, because right now, its living document seems doomed to a worthless existence.

We can already expect this bill to go nowhere in terms of delivering on the objectives and intentions that the Liberals announced during the last election campaign. It will not meet any of its objectives. Sadly, as far as those objectives go, this document is stillborn. Bill C-58 is not a living document. If it were, the government would have accepted the committee's recommendations. It would have agreed to amend its so-called living document from the outset in order to improve it and eliminate its dark and murky aspects by listening to the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Unfortunately, all of the committee's recommendations were rejected.

That is not what I would call a living, open, and transparent document that can be improved upon. The government had already made up its mind, and it refused to amend and refine the bill into something that we on this side of the House could support.

The Liberals' approach is nothing new. Every time the Liberals introduce a bill on which we could have all worked together to move certain files forward for the good of Canada and Canadians, they find a way to sneak in some totally unacceptable legislation. They know very well that there will not be unanimity and the opposition will vote against the bill. They put things in that go too far or that do not make sense. Then they say that there are good things in the bill and they wonder why the opposition does not support it. It is because the Liberals overlook all the bad things. That is how the Liberals see things. They speak in general terms and have a massive public relations campaign, but when we start getting into the details, when we look beyond all the pretty words and pretty pictures, we find that there are many flaws. The quality and the resolution of the image are not always very good.

We have become accustomed to seeing a lot of shenanigans from the Liberal government. Since I was elected in 2015, I have seen that there are all sorts of ways of using the legislative process. The Liberals are trying to do things and they are especially trying to get out of the promises they made to Canadians in order to get elected in 2015. The Liberals realized that they could promise just about anything but that it is not so easy for a government to keep such promises.

I think the Liberals are going through a tough time right now because they made all sorts of promises in order to get elected. They promised Canadians just about anything, but now they are unable to keep those promises, so they have to find a way to get out of them. They decided to introduce a bill that does not accomplish what it is supposed to accomplish, thinking that would at least get people talking about the issue.

However, talking does not change anything. If all the government does is talk about an issue, if it does not change the laws, if it is not really held to account, and if it does not keep the promises that it made to Canadians, then Canadians end up with a government that does things that people did not elect it to do. That is what is happening today.

A number of things in Bill C-58 do indeed reflect Liberal promises. The Liberals made the following promise: “We will make government information more accessible.” Clearly, based on my reading of the bill and in light of what members of this cabinet have been doing, this government has no intention of increasing government openness and transparency. Instead, Bill C-58 actually undermines access to information in Canada. There is a great deal of opposition to Bill C-58.

This government claims to be open by default, and yet, the fiercest opposition to Bill C-58 is coming from the most loyal defenders of government transparency and access to information. What is wrong with this picture? We are talking about journalists, civil liberties groups, and yes, even the federal Information Commissioner. Indeed, the individual responsible for enforcing the legislation we are debating here today has criticized much of what is in Bill C-58.

In a report released in September, Ms. Legault said that Bill C-58 fails to deliver the fundamental reform the Access to Information Act needs. She said that the government's proposals actually introduce new barriers to the process Canadians must go through when requesting government documents. One would expect to hear that kind of thing from the opposition Conservative Party because our job is to criticize the government. However, that message is from the Information Commissioner, who is responsible for enforcing Bill C-58.

The report is entitled “Failing to Strike the Right Balance for Transparency”. The title says it all. Here is what the report says:

In short, Bill C-58 fails to deliver.

The government promised the bill would ensure the act applies to the Prime Minister’s and ministers’ offices appropriately. It does not.

The government promised the bill would apply appropriately to administrative institutions that support Parliament and the courts. It does not.

The government promised the bill would empower the Information Commissioner to order the release of government information. It does not.

Rather than advancing access to information rights, Bill C-58 would instead result in a regression of existing rights.

It is the sad story of a government that promised things it had no intention of doing, or a government that improvises and was clearly not ready to govern. Two years after the election, I think that any political observer can confirm what I am saying. The government was not ready and, now, it is improvising and trying to look like it is keeping its promises, which it is entirely incapable of doing.

Let me get back to the Information Commissioner’s special report. The tables at the end of the report are impressive. They include a comparative summary, as well as information about improvements to Bill C-58, the current situation and other items. In short, we can see whether the various elements of the bill are positive, or whether they constitute a regression.

On the topic of making requests, we have a regression; declining to act on requests, regression; declining to act on requests for institutions, positive. Let us be fair, there are positive elements. The Prime Minister’s Office and mandate letters are neutral; ministers’ offices, regression; government institutions, regression; Parliament, regression; courts, regression.

With respect to fees, the process was to be streamlined and the fees abolished, but the changes still constitute a regression. On the topic of oversight model, we have a regression; seeking representations from the Privacy Commissioner in the course of an investigation: regression. That is a lot of regression, and this is not just my opinion. Mediation will be positive if added. The publication of orders will be positive if added.

The examination of solicitor-client privileged records is a positive. We are not being partisan: the impact of the purpose of the Access to Information Act is unknown. On the transition to a new oversight model, we have a regression; and the impact of the mandatory periodic review is unknown.

I can see why the impact of a mandatory periodic review is unknown. Since we began considering Bill C-58, several good suggestions have been made to improve it. The government did not take any of these suggestions into account. I understand why the commissioner has certain questions concerning the purpose of the mandatory periodic review.

The report ends on a negative note. The changes to Info Source, or the requirement institutions have to annually publish certain classes of information, constitute a regression, and lastly, on the topic of institutions’ annual reports on the administration of the Access to Information Act, we have yet another regression.

We are not the ones saying this. It is in the report of the Information Commissioner of Canada, whose title speaks volumes: “Failing to Strike the Right Balance for Transparency”. This document made recommendations to the government for improving Bill C-58 so that it would meet the openness and transparency needs not of the official opposition, the NDP, the Bloc québécois, the Green Party, independent members of Parliament or Liberal backbenchers, but of Canadians.

Unfortunately, “Failing to Strike the Right Balance for Transparency” is the report card for Bill C-58. That is why the Liberal government had to put forward a time allocation motion today, to silence the hon. members of every opposition party here in the House. It does not want us to spend time repeating that the Information Commissioner said that it was way off the mark.

Mr. Speaker, if you knew everything that people were saying and all the articles that were being written about Bill C-58, you would also have a hard time understanding the government's intention. According to the cofounder of Democracy Watch, the bill constitutes a regression in that it allows government officials to decline requests for information if they believe that the request is frivolous or in bad faith.

Let us put ourselves in the shoes of a member of cabinet who is being asked questions about his villa in France and who decides that the request is frivolous or made in bad faith, since where he spends his vacation is no business of Canadians. This person would refuse to answer the questions. That is what Democracy Watch is denouncing.

Also, well-known defender of Canadian democracy Mr. Conacher says that public servants should not have this power, because they will likely use it as a new loophole to decline giving the public the information to which it is entitled. That is exactly what I have been saying since the beginning.

Bill C-58 also imposes new obligations on people requesting information. The act currently requires government institutions to make every reasonable effort to assist a person making a request, regardless of the information requested. However, under the proposed legislation, people requesting information will have to provide more specific information about the exact type of document they are looking for, the period in question and the exact subject.

In other words, if I want to know more about the elimination of a tax credit for diabetics and I do not give the exact name of the tax credit and the form, the people across the aisle may decline to give me the information. Still, as far as I know, Canadians have the right to know why the government eliminated the tax credits for diabetics. When a major change affects the lives of those who are the most vulnerable, Canadians have the right to know why the change was made and why the minister did not inform the opposition and all Canadians. I think that is logical.

It is as if the government wanted to find more ways of hiding the truth from Canadians. I do not dare say it, but this bill looks like another attempt at a cover-up on the part of the government, and yet, all it is doing is revealing to Canadians just how unprepared it was to govern. That is our assessment of Bill C-58.

It is probably for that reason that the government does not want to have to answer questions about tax reform, the Morneau affair, Netflix taxes, the small deficits they promised, NAFTA, China, home mail delivery, and the Prime Minister's vacation on a private island, which was talked about a lot. It is probably the reason why Bill C-58 is before us today and why we are subject to time allocation.

The promise of openness and transparency is a failed public relations exercise, and I would remind members that, according to the Information Commissioner, the government has failed to meet its goal to be transparent.

National Security Act, 2017

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say that the NDP opposes the motion to refer Bill C-59 to committee before second reading.

Bill C-59 makes a lot of changes, but it does not chart a bold new course for Canada and make civil liberties and human rights central to Canadian security laws. The Liberals waited almost two years to hold a public consultation, promising to correct Bill C-51. They heard countless testimonies and received briefs from experts, and yet they failed to deliver.

Sadly, Bill C-59 does not seek to correct Bill C-51. The NDP opposed Bill C-51 from the outset back in 2015. Now we are faced with legislation that violates civil liberties and privacy rights, and Bill C-59 follows the dangerous path trodden by the Harper government.

The new, limited review and oversight mechanism set out in this bill does not make up for the disclosure of information and the almost limitless power given to our security agencies. The document that came out of the consultations, entitled “Our Security, Our Rights: National Security Green Paper, 2016”, was criticized by civil liberties advocates for being biased. It placed an inordinate amount of weight on safety and security at the expense of protecting Canadians' constitutional values.

The scenarios presented in this document seemed to favour the implementation of the most controversial provisions of Bill C-51. Although the green paper did not provide a balanced view that would allow Canadians to properly assess the potential negative impacts that giving the government too much power could have on individual rights and freedoms, the results of the consultations showed that Canadians still wanted Bill C-51 to be completely repealed and that they would not be satisfied with half measures.

The NDP has consistently called on the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to repeal and replace the 2010 ministerial directive on torture to make sure Canada abides by the total ban on torture, and more specifically to forbid the use, under any circumstances, of information that other countries may have obtained through torture and the sharing of information that could lead to torture.

Canada must not forget the shameful part it played in the torture of Canadian citizens like Maher Arar. Even though the directive was not part of Bill C-51, it is a deplorable component of our national security framework and should have been addressed during the Liberals' study of the framework. Unfortunately, the new directive issued in October 2017 does not forbid the RCMP, CSIS, or CBSA from using information that may have been obtained through torture in other countries.

The new instructions are nothing more than semantic changes, since they authorize the use of information obtained by torture in certain cases, with a very low accountability threshold. This does nothing for public safety and security, since information obtained through torture is not reliable. The new directive, just like the old one, tarnishes Canada's reputation and goes against Canadian values.

Furthermore, if the bill passes, Canada will remain a police state, and Bill C-59 will even make things worse in some specific circumstances.

It will allow the Communications Security Establishment to launch cyberattacks against foreign targets.

The agents involved will thus become terrorists in the eyes of those countries. Ordinary citizens of those countries will have no other means than their own of protecting themselves from potential injustices caused by Canadian secret agents.

This new bill has very few measures that will reduce the broader powers granted to security agencies involved in information sharing under Bill C-51. The fact remains that the definition of national security is still too broad. The legislation still allows departments to share far too much information in their quest to achieve rather questionable security objectives. However, despite the fact that a government has taken steps to create more solid frameworks for the Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, the no-fly list, the concerns raised by the introduction of C-51 remain unaddressed.

The government has not yet demonstrated why this intrusive bill is necessary. I am also concerned about the fact that Bill C-59 seems to create a legal framework that allows CSIS to keep data about citizens that used to be off limits and that there is no reasonable justification for expanding these powers. It also allows CSIS to keep its controversial disruption powers.

I will now turn to other elements of the bill that I have a problem with. Bill C-59 amends the definition of “activity that undermines the security of Canada” to include any activity that threatens the lives or the security of people in Canada or of any individual who has a connection to Canada and who is outside Canada. The definition includes activities that cause “significant or widespread interference with critical infrastructure”. We are concerned that this could be used against peaceful demonstrators protesting things like pipelines.

CSIS will maintain its threat-reduction powers. Bill C-59 just adds torture, detention, and serious damage to property that endangers the life of an individual to the list of things CSIS cannot do when disrupting a terrorist plot. CSIS must also check with other departments and organizations to see if they have other ways to reduce threats.

CSIS can prevent a person from travelling but cannot detain anyone. There is no clear distinction between the two, which creates dangerous legal uncertainty. The bill does not prevent CSIS from collecting related data from Canadians who are not considered a threat.

Finally, the bill fails to address two worrisome aspects of Canadian national security laws, namely security certificates and the ministerial directives on torture, which must be done away with.

In summary, the Liberals were elected on a promise to repeal the problematic provisions of Bill C-51, and they made us wait two years. Their current proposal does not even come close to solving the problems created by the former government's Bill C-51 regarding the violation of Canadians' privacy and the criminalization of dissent. What is more, the Liberal government is using this omnibus bill to create a legal framework that would allow CSIS to store sensitive metadata on completely innocent Canadians, a practice that the Federal Court deemed to be illegal last fall.

Transportation Modernization Act

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou, and I look forward to hearing his thoughts on this issue.

I also want to thank our transport critic, the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, for the excellent work she has done on Bill C-49. I had the pleasure of working with her on this file for a while. I know that she worked very hard on this and that she shares many of the opinions that I am going to express here today. I also want to thank Patrick, my intern from the parliamentary internship program, for his assistance in writing the speech I will be giving today. He witnessed the magnitude of this omnibus bill first-hand.

The scope of this bill is huge; it makes significant changes to 13 different acts. It will substantially affect air, rail, and sea transport. This bill will affect most of the trains, planes, and ships that travel around and across our immense country. It is what is known as an omnibus bill.

I would remind members that, in 2015, the Liberal government promised to change the rules of this place to prohibit omnibus bills. The Liberals made that promise to Canadians over and over again. In its election platform, the Liberal Party said that it would no longer resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny. It added that it would bring an end to this undemocratic practice by changing the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

It was a very convenient promise to make during an election campaign. Now it is more convenient to ignore it. What is even more interesting is that the minister who sponsored the omnibus bill we are talking about today has repeatedly criticized the use of these political games in Parliament. In a motion the transport minister moved in the House in 2012 when he was the Liberal House leader, he suggested that the intentions of omnibus bills were so varied that a single vote on so many matters would put members in conflict with their own principles.

The sponsor of the omnibus bill we are talking about today said those things in 2012. That is a totally different perspective than the one the minister and his government are taking on Bill C-49.

Why did the Liberals change their minds? Where are their principles now that they are in power? Let us not forget that this is not the only political stunt the Liberal government has pulled in order to circumvent the democratic process here in the House. Omnibus bills are not the only trick up the Liberal government's sleeve. To top it off, yesterday it decided to use time allocation to limit the debate on all these proposals. As a result, even though the government's list of proposed changes remains quite long, the time we will have to debate those changes has been shortened considerably. This is the same government that likes to talk about being open and transparent. It claims to be a government that listens, but after having worked with this government it is clear that it really does not.

By all accounts, a bill that changes our transportation system, that weakens the legislative protections for shippers and farmers, and creates a passengers' bill of rights that does not even have the support of passengers' rights advocates, deserves a more thorough and engaged debate. However, yesterday's decision to use a time allocation motion does not really surprise me or any of the other opposition MPs. It certainly did not surprise Canadians who have been watching for weeks as the Liberal government tries to defend their tax reform and the Minister of Finance's decisions in question period.

What is becoming very clear is that Canadians are losing faith that this government has a moral compass. That is another unintended consequence for the Liberals. What is not clear is the bill we are currently debating. After months in committee, and debates and studies on this bill, there are still very few details and explanations.

Let us talk about Bill C-49. The Liberal government says that the measures it is proposing will establish a new air passenger rights regime; loosen international ownership restrictions for Canadian air carriers; enable Transport Canada to examine and approve joint ventures by two or more airlines; update the Canadian freight system; require railway companies to install voice and video recorders in locomotive cabs; expand the authority of the Governor in Council to require major railway companies to provide information regarding rates; and amend the Canada Marine Act to permit port authorities to access the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

All of that is in the same bill. Whether one is for or against certain of those measures, voting is impossible. One may like some of them, but if one dislikes others, there is no way one can logically vote for this bill.

There is a fundamental lack of respect and clarity in all these measures, including the passengers' bill of rights that the government promised. The Liberals say the measure is a document that will protect travellers, but upon closer examination, one can see that is not necessarily the case. Precious little is known about this bill of rights. Nobody knows what it will look like or what penalties will be imposed on airlines if they break the rules.

Instead of putting forward something very clear, the government decided to let the Canadian Transportation Agency made the decisions. The agency will decide what is in the document and will flesh out the details, details that will affect every air traveller and every airline in Canada.

How can we have an intelligent discussion about a passengers' bill of rights without all the necessary information? How can we avoid other unexpected consequences of the sort that seem to be this government's trademark and that arise, when we are not given details about what it is proposing?

We must not forget the unintended consequences of tax reform on farmers and on small and medium-sized business owners. We must also not forget how this government attacked our most vulnerable citizens by clawing back the disability tax credit. As members of the opposition, what can we do to seek solutions to a bill under the current circumstances? For that matter, we are not the only ones sounding the alarm. We cannot support measures that are unclear. The government is asking us to trust it blindly, but it would be irresponsible of us to do so.

Let us move on to the other proposals in the government's bill. Bill C-49 would permit port authorities and their wholly-owned subsidiaries to receive loans and loan guarantees from the Canada infrastructure bank . However, this is somewhat paradoxical because, as members may recall, the infrastructure bank does not exist yet. This measure therefore makes no sense.

This bill would allow port authorities to receive loans from a soon-to-be-created infrastructure bank. In other words, they are getting immediate permission to do business with an entity that does not yet exist. What a great opportunity for the Liberal government to create even more unintended consequences with a new bank that has yet to be approved by Parliament and that will cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

As we continue to consider the impact of this bill on other industries, we find more examples of its lack of clarity. For shippers who use the railways, this bill proposes new 30-km interswitching rates that, according to the government, would be set every year and take into account railway infrastructure needs for the entire system. However, the lack of information about how the bill will implement these rates is leading shipper organizations and producer groups to be cautious regarding their position on long-distance interswitching. Like us, they are not really sure how this is going to affect them.

Shippers like Greg Cherewyk, Pulse Canada's COO, reminds us that the devil is always in the details. In May, he told the Manitoba Co-operator, and I quote, that “every word does matter, and the order of the words matters”. He pointed out that he was not sure about the exact impacts of the government's new proposals.

Today, we are going to vote on this matter because we have to vote on the omnibus bill as a whole. We cannot study this component more thoroughly because the government decided to make it part of one huge bill. We tried to make this part of the bill less vague, but the Liberals voted against those changes, even the administrative ones. It is clear that they do not understand the consequences of these measures, and that will create even more unintended consequences.

The two major railway companies in Canada have also expressed their concern regarding the impact of the new regulations, especially with respect to investments in the Canadian railway system. The president of CN thinks this is an odd decision, especially since NAFTA is still being negotiated and we do not know what impact the negotiations will have on trade. Why then give American companies even greater access to Canada? These are the questions we are asking.

In conclusion, everyone in Canada knows how important transportation issues are. Bill C-49 is an omnibus bill that is forcing us to take a position on measures that might have seemed acceptable but that we cannot support, because there are other, totally unacceptable measures in the bill.

For these reasons, I cannot support Bill C-49. There are too many unintended consequences that we can already foresee.

Once again, I would like to thank my intern Patrick for his assistance writing this speech, and I am ready to answer my colleagues’ questions.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll address this question to Dr. Sareen and Anne-Marie, or you can all answer this, please.

With Bill C-211 we are trying to address PTSD. We are a diverse country, and different communities have different approaches to address PTSD and mental health. Do you think this bill should be broadened to include different cultures and different communities? What steps can we take to ensure that the framework on PTSD respects these different cultures and communities?

Perhaps Dr. Sareen can go first.

[Sarah Ryan, Senior Research Officer, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Hi, my name is Sarah Ryan and I'm a senior research officer at CUPE. Thank you very much for inviting CUPE to present our concerns regarding the Canada infrastructure bank today.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, or CUPE, is Canada's largest union, representing 643,000 workers across Canada. CUPE members work in health care, education, municipalities, libraries, universities, social services, public utilities, emergency services, transportation, and airlines.

As more details about the Canada infrastructure bank have emerged, CUPE members have expressed strong concerns that the bank is essentially a bank of privatization. They are deeply concerned that the bank could lead to the privatization of airports, ports, public transit, roads, highways, bridges, water and waste-water systems, hydroelectric utilities, and transmission grids. These are all key services that the Canadian public depends upon every day.

Bill C-44 states that infrastructure projects financed by the bank must generate revenue and promote the public interest. Revenues can only be generated in two ways: by charging high interest rates on loans, and by introducing tolls and user fees on new infrastructure projects or existing infrastructure assets.

The mandate of the bank is fundamentally contradictory. Private investors will be the clear winners, since revenues from projects financed by the bank will fall into their pockets. Canadians who depend every day on infrastructure to heat their homes, to get them from place to place, and to ensure they have safe drinking water will be the losers. The public will shoulder the costs of the bank's high interest rates and will be hit hard by added costs of living that will result from new tolls and fees.

Bill C-44 will also allow infrastructure projects to be privately pitched through unsolicited bids. This puts private investors in the driver's seat and allows them to set priorities on what gets built.

The bank gives investors unprecedented control over how infrastructure is built, operated, and structured. Infrastructure projects developed by private investors will be tailored to profit the projects' backers and risk being totally out of touch with the public's needs and interests. This eliminates the capacity of governments and citizens to decide what infrastructure their communities need and how it should be built and paid for. It severely limits the public's capacity to influence decision-making on infrastructure investments.

Minister Morneau said that cabinet will have the final say on what gets built, but to sustain a private investment in the bank, CUPE members are not confident that cabinet will be willing or able to deny investors' proposals. Furthermore, the private sector will still play a key role in shaping the project structure to maximize profits.

When governments propose, design, finance, and build infrastructure projects, the public can hold them to account. However, Bill C-44 limits the bank's public transparency and accountability requirements. It allows project information and investor deals to be kept secret from the public. This means that information about how community infrastructure is being funded, who is involved in projects, and how much investors are profiting will not be available to the public. This is bad news for Canadians who have a right to know how public monies, which will partially fund the bank, are being spent and how public infrastructure is being built.

In conclusion, CUPE offers the following recommendations.

First, the government should establish a public infrastructure bank that provides low-cost financing for new infrastructure projects, and that means public financing. There is no shortage of financing available for the federal government to borrow at low interest rates right now. If this is done through a public bank and lending institution, similar to the Business Development Bank of Canada, CMHC, or EDC, then its investments in borrowing wouldn't need to increase the deficit or net debt any more than the current proposal.

Second, the government should ensure there's stronger accountability, transparency, and review by auditors general over the bank and its projects. The bank should be mandated to provide full public disclosure of all business deals, value-for-money assessments, and contracts. The bank should also have public officials on its board to ensure that it acts in the public interest. Public infrastructure projects must remain public and not turn into secret deals with private corporations.

Finally, the government should not allow private corporations to determine infrastructure priorities, including through unsolicited bids. Instead, it should establish a public and transparent process using evidence-based analysis for truly objective planning of priority infrastructure projects.

Thank you.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I appreciate that, but your government legislation is not doing the same thing. It's at odds with itself, with this committee, and with the voting in the House of Commons on Bill C-25, so I'd ask you to consider that as that draft legislation works its way through.

The other one to review as a scientist and working so well within our academic communities is Bill C-36. I won't touch on too much of it, but at this point I would appeal for a review of it. It's amazing, Madam Minister, that despite the testimony of Munir Sheikh and Wayne Smith, and other testimony that we had on this committee, not a single amendment was able to pass through this committee with regard to the inclusion of their contributions.

In fact, several witnesses who have high profiles and respect in academia, not only at home here but internationally, and were also the former census operators, both resigning over differences of opinion in the scientific approach to the census going from long form to short form and so forth and also provisions. Not a single word of their testimony, or of any of the witnesses, will be included in the legislation that's been proposed to go back to the House of Commons at this time.

I would like to move though, Madam Minister, to the review panel and the expectations for it. I think that was an excellent approach. In the 1970s we didn't even have the concept of a mobile phone. I think the first time I saw a mobile phone was in a movie with Mel Gibson. The phone weighed about 10 pounds and looked like a World War II phone.

At any rate, can you give us an indication of when we might hear back about that, and what type of movement and resources the government has committed toward that?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

My colleagues are agreeing. We were hunkering down for what would probably be.... I don't know, but in my mind I was thinking, well, maybe a couple of or three—and if we really get in the ditch, four or five—committees will be lost to this, and then eventually the government will come to their senses, do what has been done in the past, and in fact do what we've done during this Parliament. That will be the next area I move to, Chair, after I read a letter.

That process, as I'll point out later, was completely done by consensus. There are so many similarities to what the government wanted us to do, and for the work that we did on this committee on that report, yet the approach is completely different. We can say names here; we can't in the House. The previous government House leader, Mr. LeBlanc, used a very different approach than the current House leader, Madam Chagger. It resulted in a report that we just accepted in the House on Monday, I believe.

That's what I thought would happen. There would be a number of meetings—as I said, five or six if we really got in the ditch and the government got obstinate—and eventually they would realize that, okay, that little attempted power play, while it would have been nice, was clearly not going to happen. The opposition was not asleep at the switch and wouldn't allow themselves to be lulled into silly arguments about what this is or isn't—we know very well what it is. At the end of the day, it became clear that the government not only didn't want to do what they had just done the year before, but they were going to launch this from a localized committee “squarmish”. I think that's the right word. I think it's a word. I'm getting close, anyway: “skirmish”? I think that's the right word. I'm getting close, anyway. Anyway, a “skirmish” is a little battle that happens all the time.

I've been involved in all kinds of those. In fact, as I did the one on Bill C-23, oftentimes at committee all I would have to do is threaten that I was about to go into a filibuster and that would be enough to get something moving, because, boy, nobody wanted to hear me do exactly what I'm doing right now for any longer than absolutely necessary. Just having it there and the reference to it and that we were about to do it.... My colleagues do it all the time. Mr. Schmale, even as a new member here, has indicated along the way that, hey, folks, if this doesn't start going a little more clearly, I'm not going to have any.... Then we get over it. We get past that.

That didn't happen here. For some strange reason, the government members believed that it was in their best interests to launch this into the stratosphere, to have all of the national media become aware that a localized issue in a committee is now not only a major blowing up in terms of a 24-7 filibuster, but it's starting to spill over into the House.

I'll add parenthetically that I just thought it was so cute today. The Prime Minister apparently told his caucus that this was going to be fun, and it was kind of cute when he got up and de facto created a Wednesday Prime Minister's question period and answered every question. They were so clever. I'm sure they thought that.... Well, he didn't answer every question, because not every one went to him. Every question that went to the government, the Prime Minister answered, which, as I understand it, is their idea of what this Wednesday Prime Minister's day would look like.

I don't know, but I guess the brainiacs over there in the PMO decided to show Canadians what the benefit would be of having this kind of day when the Prime Minister is on his feet answering every single question put to the government. The problem is that they didn't take the next step and think it through just a little further, because Mr. Strahl and I, during question period, took great delight in thanking the Prime Minister for answering those questions but also pointing out that they didn't need to use their majority to ram through a change to the rules to get exactly what they wanted. They want a Prime Minister's day on Wednesday and—poof—de facto they got one, with no rules changed, no rights abused, no flexing of political muscle.

None of that took place. All that happened was that the Prime Minister answered the questions. All right? If you want to put a special fancy label on Wednesday, which is normally known as caucus day so that it becomes caucus day and “Prime Minister's question period”, fill your boots. Live it up. It was kind of fun.

The next time, we know that we'll be able to line up questions that are meant to go to prime ministers, because, of course, the questions for today were geared to the usual process in which the prime minister answers the questions of the leaders of the parties, out of respect.... Well, most of them. Yes, there's been a change there, too, which is interesting. It was pointed out in one of the articles today.

That's probably the easiest one he's ever going to have, because it was one that we didn't know was coming, but that's a whole other matter. That's fine. That's great. Let the politics of the day take over. If that's what's going to happen on Wednesdays from here on in, then our question period group that makes these decisions in each of our caucuses will take into account that the PM is answering every question today, okay, so our questions will be geared at that level.

It's a very different question if you're asking the prime minister. Even on the same subject, there can be often a difference in the question you would ask the prime minister. It can be a kind of a macro question, whereas a micro question, albeit important, would go to the minister and is sometimes answered by the parliamentary secretary, which is part of our process too.

I thought I would take a minute to point out that while it was very cute and almost clever to have that today, at the end of the day all the government really did was show that with a little co-operation, and sometimes even under the existing rules, they can get what they want. Their first option doesn't have to be the Harper option: “we're going in with a hammer because every discussion is a nail”. That's where we are, yet with a little co-operation, a lot could happen.

Chair, I would now like to shift gears a little and move to a timely piece of correspondence that is 100% relevant to what we're dealing with here today, and it's rather extraordinary. It's not often that you see the House leader of the official opposition and the House leader of the third party sign a joint letter addressing the government. It happens, but not every day. That just goes to show you how important this is and how big this is.

I remind everybody that it wasn't the opposition that made this the 24-7 filibuster that's taking over all of Parliament and looms over everything we're doing. We didn't do that. We were just going to have a nice little filibuster, a kind of respectful filibuster, that you would call a “battle”. I think that's fair. That's what we'd have: a little battle. The government is the one that decided, no, that they were going to take this and throw it into the stratosphere, and blow it up as big as they can. They didn't adjourn the committee, and here we are, over two weeks later, with it front and centre in the national media.

We finally got an awful lot of attention from Canadians. Thank you to the government, because it would have taken us months to do that if we were doing it only from 11 to one o'clock twice a week. I think you should be worried over there that maybe there is a spy working in our best interests. While you may have thought it was a clever move, because at the end of the day you have your majority, look where we are. Way to go. I'd like to know what your objective was, because it couldn't have been getting anything done. There must be some other strange Liberal-think about how this advances the Liberal interests and the government's interests in terms of its process. I don't know. At the very least, it does point out another broken promise, and that is the lack of respect for standing committees.

Again, I've said this over and over, and it sometimes breaks my heart to say it, but as you know, reality is reality. When we didn't win the election, which for a long time or for some time looked like it was going to happen.... I've got to tell you: those were great days. That was nice. I'd never been in that situation before.

I was part of the win in 1990, but nobody knew it was going to happen until election night, so there wasn't that anticipation, that “wow, we're ahead” thing. This time, that actually happened. It was wonderful and glorious, the highlight of my federal time here. It didn't work out in the end as well as I thought it might, and as well as it felt, but you know what, that's democracy, right? You win some and you lose them all. I don't know.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

It's for the rest of your life, I guess, until someone tries to take it away from you. That's is the point I'm getting at. I was told that during the terrorist attack in 2014, when the person was coming onto the Hill, they were looking for the pins. They were looking for somebody wearing the pin. So it was recommended at the time that you find a way to display it differently.

I have a good friend who's a first nations artist and does incredible work. If you're okay with it, I'm going to mention his name, Keith Kerrigan. He's incredible. He's a lawyer. He was my business lawyer to begin with. However, he's a far better artist than he was...I'm sure he was successful. Anyway, he built this ring for me and I wear it every day. To me this is my Stanley Cup ring. This is my Olympic gold medal ring. This is my Grey Cup ring. It means the world to me. The reason this means the world to me is that I get the opportunity to serve Canadians. I get the opportunity to try to make a difference in people's lives, and I think we're doing that with Bill C-211.

[Stephen Erlichman]

CCGG recognizes that Bill C-25 currently reflects changes to the CBCA where there's a perceived consensus among the comments received during the previous round of consultations. However, CCGG has identified the following three additional corporate governance issues that require further consideration. CCGG does not believe Bill C-25 should be held up, however, while these additional issues are considered.

First, the CBCA should facilitate the ability of shareholders to nominate directors. Current methods by which shareholders nominate director candidates are quite simply not effective. As a result, director nominees are almost always chosen by the incumbent board or company management.

Further, in our experience, companies very seldom seek input from shareholders when selecting board nominees. Canada is becoming a laggard in this area of governance. In the United States, for example, 39% of the S&P 500 companies have adopted a meaningful method for shareholders to nominate director candidates. We also understand that direct shareholder input into the director nomination process exists in many other countries around the world.

Second, the CBCA should require an advisory “say on pay” vote by means of an ordinary resolution at each annual meeting of shareholders. The area of such advisory votes is one in which Canada is an international outlier. Periodic say on pay votes are mandatory in the United States, Australia, and such western European countries as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and others.

Third, the CBCA should as a general rule require that the board chair be independent of management. The board chair plays a key role in leading or coordinating the other directors, both during and outside of meetings, in support of the board's obligation to supervise the senior executive team's performance. When the board chair is not independent of management, it results in a serious conflict of interest and obscures the lines of accountability. For example, the oversight of the senior executive team, in particular of the CEO, is one of the board's key responsibilities. A combined board chair and CEO would thus be responsible for leading the body that oversees himself or herself.

Finally, in addition to the three specific issues I've just mentioned, CCGG recommends the creation of a standing external stakeholder advisory body to advise the federal government on corporate governance issues. It's been addressed many times over the past few weeks before this committee that the CBCA has not been substantially amended since 2001, and only twice in the past 40 years. If consensus is what drives this process forward, then we respectfully submit that there is consensus for more regular follow-up.

A standing stakeholder advisory body in corporate governance would support a regular review process. The advisory body could be populated with key government stakeholders and professionals to provide periodic reports on ways to improve the regulatory environment for CBCA public companies as well as federal public financial institutions. Further, such a body could provide helpful feedback regarding the matter in which the provisions in Bill C-25 related to diversity are being interpreted and adopted by public companies.

In closing, we thank you for the opportunity to testify before this committee. Catherine and I would be happy to respond to any questions.

[Miriam Brouillet]

Thank you for your question.

I think, as I mentioned before, that the power that is conferred to the minister under subsection 56.1(1) is a broad power, and she's required to make her decision in light of the medical purpose. If there is a medical purpose, she has the power to use this exemption power.

Further, the minister is required to balance two elements, public health and public safety, in light of the different factors that the Supreme Court laid out. Once she is convinced that there is a medical purpose and that those two elements are balanced, the minister may grant an exemption from provisions of the CDSA. Therefore, that power to act rapidly exists currently under the provision as presented in Bill C-37.

[Terry Campbell, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Bankers Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

We would like to thank the committee for inviting the Canadian Bankers Association to participate in the committees review of Bill C-29.

The CBA works on behalf of 59 domestic banks, foreign bank subsidiaries and foreign bank branches operating in Canada and their 280,000 employees.

Our opening remarks will address the provisions contained in division 5 of part 4 of the bill. These amendments to the Bank Act consolidate and streamline the consumer protection provisions that apply to banks under a federal financial consumer protection framework. My introductory comments are going to focus on the broader aspects of the amendments that will affect the banking industry and our customers.

Building and maintaining a strong client relationship is of fundamental importance to Canada's banks. Banks are an active and essential part of the daily lives of Canadians. Ninety-nine per cent of Canadians have an account with a financial institution, so many millions of Canadians turn to banks every day for products, services, and financial advice. We help Canadians safeguard their money, finance a home, manage their savings, plan their investments, and prepare for retirement.

Banks in Canada take very seriously their role in the lives of individual Canadians, and Canadians trust their banks and value the products and services they provide. In fact, Canada's banks have been recognized internationally for their commitment to providing a good consumer experience. Our banks have been ranked first out of 32 countries in the Capgemini “World Retail Banking Report” every year since 2012.

Bill C-29 consolidates the consumer protection provisions that exist in federal legislation as they have evolved over many years, including new measures, into a single financial consumer protection framework within the Bank Act. By creating a clear federal framework, Bill C-29 ensures that Canadian customers continue to benefit from consistent, safe, and high-quality banking products and services across the country.

Consolidating consumer protection and establishing a uniform set of standards under a single framework will improve the efficiency of financial services regulation, ensure consistent policy across the country, prevent consumer confusion, maximize product availability, and ensure the capacity of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to fulfill its regulatory mandate to inform and protect consumers.

We support the placing of the consumer protection framework under the oversight of a single regulator. The FCAC was created in 2001 to strengthen oversight of consumer regulation and expand consumer education. The industry has a long-standing and strong working relationship with the FCAC in many areas, particularly in the area of financial literacy.

We also support a framework of consumer protection principles that are not prescriptive and that can be adapted to change. Allowing and encouraging further innovation in the financial sector is essential, so that banks can continue to serve the needs of consumers by developing and enhancing financial products and services and the way they are delivered to our customers.

As leaders in financial technology, banks in Canada are constantly innovating, developing new products and services to meet the demands of their customers for greater convenience. Canadians can now bank at any time, from virtually anywhere, through online and/or mobile banking. Every year, more and more Canadians are adopting online and mobile as their preferred means of banking. Despite this trend, however, banks have maintained an extensive branch network across the country, because that is where relationships with their clients are often established and maintained.

More clarity about the implementation of the framework is going to be provided through the development of subsequent regulations, and we look forward to engaging in that process. Our aim would be to achieve a workable, efficient, and flexible approach for the benefit of Canadian consumers.

With the start of the global financial crisis now nearly a decade behind us, it's important to keep in mind that Canada's prudently managed banks, combined with an effective financial services regulatory and supervisory framework, were key reasons for the strength and the resilience of Canada's banking system. A key lesson of that crisis was the importance of a streamlined, coherent, and unified regulatory system, which we have in Canada, with a single regulator responsible for safety and soundness—the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions—and a single regulator for consumer protection, the FCAC.

The CBA and its members have long supported a strong federal regulatory framework for the benefit of consumers. Although Canadians already benefit from a strong protection system, we think the federal framework proposed in Bill C-29 is an important step in the direction of further improving that regime, with a clear, streamlined, and consistent set of regulations that are applied across the country.

Thank you again for inviting us to be here today, and we look forward to your questions.

Thank you.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, everyone, for coming, especially our witnesses from Yukon. As I'm sure Larry can tell you, it's not always an easy trip. It's getting easier, I think. There are more flight options now, but I bare the scars of being the parliamentary secretary for aboriginal affairs and northern development when Bill S-6 was passed, and we had a day in the Yukon when we talked with placer miners, the mining associations, and with Ruth Massie and the Yukon first nations.

Obviously, things were proposed in Bill S-6. There were time limits on the review process to bring it in line with the rest of Canada, exempting projects from reassessment unless there's been significant change, allowing the federal minister to provide binding policy direction, and the ability to delegate to the territorial government on certain issues, so I think those were the four main issues at play.

Have you been consulted? You mentioned in your brief that you'd like to be consulted. Obviously, you weren't consulted before the current Bill C-17 was tabled in the House. Has the government reached out to you to get your point of view subsequent to that tabling, and do you have any comments on those four issues, which are the most important to the placer mining industry, in terms of what was in Bill S-6 and what is proposed to be removed in Bill C-17?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll come to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are here on the study of the cost estimate of Bill C-239, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (Charitable Gifts), and the cost estimate of Bill C-241, an act to amend the Excise Act (School Authorities), and recent reports that the parliamentary budget officer has done.

We have with us today, Jean-Denis Fréchette, the parliamentary budget officer, and a number of officials are with him. Welcome, Jean-Denis and company. We'll hear your opening statement and go from there.

Welcome and thank you.

Motions in amendment

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-15, part of our government's plan to strengthen the middle class and keep Canada's economy strong and growing for the long term.

The measures in the budget implementation act will enable us to move forward on our ambitious economic agenda. It is an agenda that restores hope for the middle class by making smart, necessary investments in our country's future.

It is a plan I was honoured to table in this House on March 22.

Let me begin by emphasizing that we intend to take advantage of a historic opportunity. Thanks to the leadership of governments in the 1990s, Canada's debt position is by far the best in the G7. With interest rates at record lows, now is the time to invest in people and the economy to prepare Canada for a brighter future.

Budget 2016 will support the middle class now by helping Canadian families with important and necessary measures, and it lays the foundation for sustainable, long-term economic growth. In particular, on December 7, 2015, we introduced the middle-class tax cut. Nearly nine million Canadians are now benefiting from lower taxes on every paycheque.

As a second step, budget 2016 introduced the new Canada child benefit. Compared with the existing system, the new Canada child benefit will be simpler, more generous, and tax free. It will also be targeted to those who need it most. With the introduction of the Canada child benefit, about 300,000 fewer children will be living in poverty. In fact, the CCB represents the most significant social policy innovation in a generation. It means real help for real people, and putting more money in the pockets of moms and dads to pay for everything from summer camp to new clothes.

This is only part of what Bill C-15 does to help families directly. In the past, I have spoken in the House about measures that will also help seniors, veterans, and students. Through their efforts, their innovation, and their integrity, Canadians are building a stronger economy for today and for future generations. They rightfully expect their government to work with them in support of those initiatives.

Allow me to highlight a portion of the bill which I have seldom had the chance to address directly in the House.

As members will know, in addition to helping families and making important investments, Bill C-15 also introduces a number of measures in support of our plan to ensure tax fairness and maintain the integrity of the tax system. As we have said many times, we believe all Canadians should be paying their fair share of taxes.

The budget was tabled before this issue dominated the international headlines this spring, but when it did, I am proud to say that Canada was able to stand proud and highlight the action we had just announced in our plan to prevent underground economic activity and tax evasion, as well as aggressive tax planning.

A cornerstone of our action is a $444-million investment over five years for the Canada Revenue Agency to enhance its efforts to crack down on tax evasion and combat tax avoidance. However, we all recognize that assessing tax revenues alone is not enough, and that is why budget 2016 invests an additional $351.6 million over five years to improve the CRA's ability to go after and collect those outstanding tax debts.

In addition, Canada's tax system needs ongoing adjustment to ensure that it is functioning as intended and contributing to the objective of an economy that works for everyone. We believe a stronger revenue base will help support our new investments in education, infrastructure, training, and other programs that will help to secure a better quality of life for Canada's indigenous people, building a stronger, more unified, more prosperous Canada. These are just a few of the measures in the bill.

However, to ensure a brighter future for our kids and grandkids we have to plan much further ahead. As we look out over the horizon we see challenges and we see a world of opportunity.

For starters, Canada’s population is aging. The global economy is volatile. Oil prices are unpredictable. We need to take steps to improve competitiveness and productivity in Canada so that we become drivers of our own success now, and in a generation from now.

As our workforce ages and shrinks, real GDP growth has been forecast to slow from about 3% enjoyed since 1970 to slightly less than 2% over the next 15 years, a one percentage point drop. Productivity is key to a growing economy because when output per worker is higher, firms can pay their employees more, families can work less while earning more, and companies can return larger dividends to their investors or reinvest in their businesses.

I am proud to be working with my cabinet colleagues, the ministers of innovation, trade, labour, and infrastructure, on delivering our long-term growth agenda, but we know that we do not have all of the answers and we are open to innovative new ideas. That is why, a few weeks ago, I hosted my inaugural meeting of the advisory council on economic growth.

Through this growth council, we have brought together some of the best minds, who bring a global perspective and wide-ranging experience that will help us shape the government's growth strategy. The council will help generate the bold and innovative ideas needed to create and sustain long-term economic growth that benefits the middle class and those who are working hard to join it. We want Canadians to be able to afford to send their kids to a quality day care or help their teenagers with a college education and tuition. We want to ensure that every Canadian can put away enough money for a safe and secure retirement.

To conclude, we know the challenges that we face will not be solved overnight or by a single budget, but we also know that good government is not just about today and tomorrow. It is also about the years and decades to come. That is where our focus will be and will continue to be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I call the meeting to order. We are continuing clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-15.

(On clause 212)

The amendment that will be coming forward is NDP-13.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I just want you to also be aware that we cannot.... If witnesses wish to come to committee, we cannot force a question; we have to allow them to come, so basically the discussion of whether we have witnesses or not is moot. If people say they wish to come to a committee to discuss a bill, that is part of what the committees are supposed to do.

Being aware of that, we therefore.... The amendment is that there be two hours to discuss Bill C-210, and that the list of witnesses be given by Thursday at the end of the business day.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The amendment does not carry, so we are back to the original motion by Mr. Vandal, which is for one hour to discuss Bill C-210 on Thursday.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you seek it, I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That Bill C-16, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to a committee of the whole, reported to the House without amendment, concurred in at report stage, read a third time, and passed.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Does Bill C-10 establish a minimum number of jobs maintaining and overhauling Air Canada aircraft in the country?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

How many jobs will remain in Canada after Bill C-10 has been passed?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Good afternoon.

In your opinion, under Bill C-10 in its present form, unfortunately without the amendments that the New Democrats proposed and perhaps with one amendment from the Conservatives, how many jobs maintaining Air Canada aircraft will remain in Canada?

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

Thank you very much.

That is another reason that leads me to wonder why we have to act so quickly and why it was decided to impose closure so that Bill C-10 is passed more quickly.

In another comment, I will take the opportunity to talk about the involvement of the two governments. There has been a lot of talk that they need Bill C-10 to be passed, supposedly in order to finalize the understandings that have not been reached. Why is it so urgent to pass Bill C-10?

The amendment that my NDP colleague has introduced allowed me to reflect on this matter. Before we moved to pass this bill, I would like it to have gone back to the House so that committee members could get some answers to these questions. Unfortunately, the time allocation does not allow us to do that.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Given the current legislation and the cases before the courts, is there an obligation that is forcing the government to pass Bill C-10 at this stage? Is there anything in legal or administrative terms that justifies passing a bill like this?

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I am pleased to speak to this proposed amendment because it allows me to recall some of the important considerations we heard when the committee studied Bill C-10.

First of all, we had the opportunity to hear from the minister. He told us about Bill C-10, but he was not able to explain the urgent need to act and to pass Bill C-10. Why is the government in such a hurry to pass Bill C-10? Even today, members asking the question have had no answer.

Why is it important to understand the urgency on the part of the government in acting on this matter? It is simple. A number of the groups who testified have told us that it was important for them for Bill C-10 not to be passed in haste, too quickly, without obtaining guarantees in some form. There must be a guarantee that workers’ jobs in this industry will be preserved and that the centres currently located in each of the provinces be maintained. There must be a guarantee that workers’ rights will be preserved, workers who, I remind you, have gone to court on several occasions and have won their case each time. There must be a guarantee that another group of former workers will have the time to present a plan to revive the heavy maintenance industry, even to maintain aircraft in Canada. There must be a guarantee that the quality of the work done here will be preserved, just like our knowledge and our skill in the aviation industry. There must be a guarantee that provinces will be allowed to reach real agreements with Air Canada.

From the outset, we have heard about Air Canada acquiring C Series aircraft from Bombardier but we have never been told the reasoning and the role that Bill C-10 is playing in the acquisition of those aircraft. There seems to be no agreement between the government and Air Canada. There seems to be no agreement with Bombardier either, for the acquisition of these aircraft. However, everyone who has testified here has made a very clear and precise link between those agreements that we have heard nothing about, that are not supposed to exist, but that apparently do exist. If you are following me, it is quite clear.

That is why it is our responsibility to ask questions. Are there legal reasons, administrative reasons? Are there reasons to justify these deadlines that we do not know about and that, as parliamentarians, we should have known about?

You said earlier that you would give us the time. I am new to Parliament and I am not used to all this procedure. Can I ask the witnesses questions about this now? Is this the time? Can I ask questions?

[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.

Oaths of Office

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-1, an act respecting the administration of oaths of office, and sought the unanimous consent of the House to have the bill printed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

This is in response. This is the final reading of the bill. The bill has been debated in the House. There have been questions asked in the House. There have been answers given.

Mr. Lamoureux, because you're a new member, we're not going to go back and start over at the beginning of Bill C-55. We are right now on clause-by-clause.

Mr. Lévesque.

Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-60, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am excited to get going on Bill C-60, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons). Bill C-60 represents a responsible expansion of a citizen's power of arrest as well as the simplification of the self-defence and defence of property provisions in the Criminal Code.

I want to thank the initiatives of a number of people and one of them is certainly the member for Mississauga—Erindale who is also my parliamentary secretary. He has been a champion of the reform in this law. I am pleased to join with my colleague, the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I thank him and my colleagues who are in the House with me. They have been very supportive of our justice legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that all Canadians are grateful for all the support that you have given us on these bills.

The bill before us today is balanced and necessary. In describing the particular amendments contained in this bill, the bill will focus on three main areas: first, what the law currently provides for; second, the policy rationale for reform; and third, most important for statutory interpretation purposes, the legislative intent behind the elements of the reforms.

On this last point, it is crucial for colleagues to be reminded that the debate in this place and the other provides guidance to our courts in finding the legislative intent of the laws we pass and is often cited by our courts in coming to a decision.

I will first deal with citizen's arrest reforms, followed by the defence of property and then self-defence.

With regard to citizen's arrest, it is important to recall that an arrest consists of the actual seizure or touching of a person's body with a view to detention. The pronouncing of words alone can constitute an arrest if the person submits to the request. A power of arrest is found in a range of federal and provincial law but for our purposes we are focused on the power that exists in the Criminal Code.

As members can imagine, there are substantial differences between the power of police and that of a citizen to make an arrest under the Criminal Code.

Currently, under section 495, a peace officer may arrest without a warrant any person whom he or she finds committing a criminal offence, as well as any person whom he or she believes, on reasonable grounds, has committed or is about to commit an indictable offence.

What the courts have told us is that for an arrest to be valid on the basis of reasonable grounds, the arresting officer must personally believe that he or she possesses the required grounds to arrest, and those grounds must be objectively established in the sense that a reasonable person standing in the shoes of the officer would believe that they are reasonable and probable grounds to make that arrest.

In comparison, currently under section 494 of the Criminal Code, the private citizen may arrest those found committing indictable offences, those being pursued by others who have authority to arrest and those committing criminal offences in relation to property.

It is important to note that there is a legal duty under section 494 to deliver an arrested person to the police forthwith, which has been interpreted by the courts to mean as soon as reasonably practical under all the circumstances.

As members can see, there is a clear distinction between the power of arrest for the police and the power given to citizens. There are good reasons for these differences. The focus of Bill C-60 relates to the power of arrest of persons found committing a criminal offence on or in relation to property.

In this regard, the bill would expand 494(2) of the Criminal Code to permit a property owner or a person authorized by the property owner to arrest a person if he or she finds the person committing a criminal offence on or in relation to his or her property, not just at the time when the offence is being committed, which is the current law, but also within a reasonable time after the offence is committed.

It is essential to ensure that the proper balance is maintained between citizen involvement in law enforcement and the role of the police as our primary law enforcers.

To this end, the new measures will include the requirement that before an arrest can be made at some time after the offence is committed, which is the expansion the bill provides for, the arresting person must believe on reasonable grounds that it is not feasible in the circumstances for a peace officer to make the arrest instead.

The intention behind this last requirement is to ensure that citizens use this expanded power of arrest in cases of urgency. Citizens must turn their mind to whether the police are able to make the arrest, which is a far preferable circumstance. However, if people reasonably believe that the police will not be able to respond in time and make the arrest, property owners would be authorized to do it themselves.

The courts are familiar and comfortable with assessing the reasonableness of beliefs and would consider each case on its merits. In practical terms, the court may choose to look at such factors as the urgency of the situation, the safety of the people involved and the location of the incident, whether adequate information to identify the suspect was available and perhaps even the past conduct of the suspect.

In a nutshell, what is the change in the law? I would summarize the essence of the reform in the following way. Under the current law, if people find someone committing a criminal offence, they are only allowed to arrest him or her at that time. Under the proposed change, the arrest can take place later, within a reasonable time of finding the person committing the offence, as long as there are reasonable grounds to believe a police officer cannot make the arrest.

Members may ask what a reasonable period of time is. The phrase is not defined in the bill. The intention behind the phrase is to allow the courts, on a case by case basis, as they have done in so many instances, to examine the facts and circumstances and to make a determination on whether the time was reasonable in that particular case. The courts would likely turn to such factors as the length of delay, the conduct of the suspect and the conduct of the arrester, among other things. Imposing a rigid time limit on an arrest, for example an authority arrest within 12 hours would not be sound policy. The law must provide flexibility, but at the same time, build in safeguards, as Bill C-60 does.

Some may argue that this reform encourages vigilantism. I would completely disagree with that. The bill requires that a person witnesses an offence being committed and provides a degree of flexibility in terms of when an arrest can be effected for that offence. The bill does not change the amount of force that can be used in making an arrest. In short, people must continue to act responsibly.

This reform is being advanced because we have been hearing clearly from Canadians that limitations on citizen's arrests require change. There have been well publicized cases of individuals being charged and prosecuted for citizen's arrests that occurred shortly after an offence was witnessed. The government's goal is, therefore, to provide a balanced extension of the period of time to make an arrest.

Finally, for greater certainty, the reforms specify that the existing requirements in relation to the use of force in effecting arrests, which are provided for under section 25 of the Criminal Code, apply to citizen's arrests. I think that is only reasonable. There is no change to the rules regarding how much force can be used to make a citizen's arrest. An individual who makes a citizen's arrest is, if he or she acts on reasonable grounds, justified in using as much force as necessary for that purpose.

It is important to highlight that a person making an arrest is never justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless he or she believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for self-preservation or for anyone under his or her protection from death or grievous bodily harm.

These legal standards have been in place for a long time and continue to reflect appropriate policy today. This reform and our discussions of it in this place give us an opportunity to speak directly to Canadians. In this regard, I would like to say that citizen's arrests made without careful consideration of the risk factors may have serious unintended physical consequences, as well as legal consequences for those involved.

When deciding if a citizen's arrest is appropriate, people should consider whether a peace officer is available to intervene, whether their personal safety or that of others would be compromised by attempting the arrest, whether they have reasonable belief regarding the suspect's criminal conduct and identity, and whether they can turn over the suspect to the police without delay once an arrest is made.

In developing these citizen's arrest reforms, we consider a number of options. We examine private members' bills currently before this place as well as the laws of other jurisdictions and certainly the representations that are made to me and to the government on this issue. I submit that we have taken the elements of all these efforts and have developed a proposal which makes sense to Canadians.

I would now like to turn the defence of property contained in the bill. The government decided to couple reform with the defence of property with citizen's arrest reforms because there is a logical and factual connection between the two.

Consider the example of a property owner who sees a theft taking place on his or her property. In this situation, he or she could attempt a citizen's arrest if the desire was to capture the thief so he or she could be charged and prosecuted. However, the person could also desire to get the suspected intruder off the property, without intending to make the arrest. In the latter case, the use of force by the property owner could be justified by a claim of defence of property.

The defence of property, like any defence, is a claim made by a person who is alleged to have committed a criminal offence and who asserts that he or she should not be held responsible for that alleged offence because of some countervailing policy. Defending one's property from a threat is just the kind of circumstance that might justify otherwise criminal conduct, such as the use of force against a would-be thief.

Our Criminal Code, since its inception in 1892, provided a defence for the use of force to protect one's possession of property. However, one of the unfortunate realities about the defence is the way it is worded in the code. There are five separate provisions, sections 38 to 42, of the code that could potentially apply to a defence of property circumstance. The provisions create a distinct defence depending on the precise circumstances, differentiating between types of property and the hierarchy of claims to the property as between the possessor and the person seeking to interfere with the property. They are extremely detailed and, in many cases, overlap with each other. This approach to the Criminal Code is well over a century old and does not meet the needs of Canadians today.

The idea behind the defence of property is simple. A person should not be held criminally responsible for the reasonable use of force to protect property in his or her possession from being taken, destroyed, or trespassed upon.

We cannot find many of these words in the law itself. However, we can find many other words which, rather than help to set out this idea, describe narrow subsets of it. This means that Canadians, including police, prosecutors, judges and ultimately juries, must consider too many words and words which overlap with each other to arrive at what, in essence, is a rather simple idea.

Bill C-60 will demystify and clarify these waters.

The defence of property reforms contained in the bill would replace five separate provisions with one simplified provision that captures the essence of the defence, while providing the same level of protection as the existing law and with some modest enhancements.

There are some essential property-related concepts that must be retained, such as the idea of peaceable possession of property. Because different people can have independent claims to property and because the defence must, to some degree, incorporate notions borrowed from property law, the defence must have some technical components.

One enhancement is that a defence could be raised as a defence to any type of act that otherwise would be criminal. The law justifies the use of force in defence of property, which is basically assaultive behaviour against the property trespasser.

In recognition of the fact that people might engage in other forms of otherwise criminal activity to defend their property, such as discharging a weapon into the air to scare away the trespassers, Bill C-60 would allow the defence to apply so long as the actions are reasonable in the circumstances.

Finally, the reform on defence would clearly deny its application in the cases of lawful police action, such as the execution of a search warrant.

The new law of property, like the current law, does not put any express limits on what can be done to defend property. However, it is absolutely essential to note that courts have unequivocally rejected the use of intentional deadly force in defence of property alone and have stated many times that deadly force cannot ever be justified where human life is in jeopardy.

Some property-related conflicts do pose a risk to human life, such as home invasions, and deadly force may be justified in these circumstances.

This brings me to the law of self-defence.

Like the defence of property, the self-defence provisions were enacted in Canada's first Criminal Code in 1892 and have remained largely unchanged since that time. Like the defence of property, the law governing self-defence is set out over several separate provisions that describe situation-specific defences which overlap or conflict with each other, depending on the facts of a particular case.

I would submit that this complexity in the law cannot remain, especially when we are delineating the legal tests to be used for people using force in self-defence.

The complexity of the law makes it extremely difficult for the police to assess whether charges should be laid, causes trial counsel to have to devote time and energy to making arguments about which version of the defence should apply and poses challenges for judges on instructing juries how to apply the law. We can only imagine what juries think when the law is read to them.

Described in a general way, the proposed reforms would replace all of the existing defences with a single, general test for the defence of the person. In essence, people would be protected from criminal responsibility if they reasonably believe that they or another person are being threatened with force and they act reasonably for the purpose of defending themselves or another person from that force.

The reforms would also include a list of factors the court could consider in determining whether the person's actions were reasonable, such as a pre-existing relationship between the parties, including any history of violence, and the proportionality between the harm threatened and the response.

The list of factors codifies well-recognized features of many self-defence situations and will help guide judges and juries in applying the new law.

Consistent with the present law and for sound policy reasons, the defence would not be available where the person would be responding to a peace officer or other person who would be acting lawfully for a law enforcement purpose, such as when a person is arrested.

I am pleased to report that the proposed reforms on self-defence are consistent with those agreed to in 2009 by federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice based on the collective work of their officials. These reforms also respond to calls for simplification by many criminal justice stakeholders.

The citizen's arrest reforms extend the time in which an arrest can be made for an offence committed on or in relation to property. There is a real need in doing so to keep a clear distinction between the powers of the police and those of citizens. Police officers are rightly cloaked in the duty to preserve and maintain the public peace. They are our first and foremost criminal law enforcement body and with this reform, they continue to be so.

With regard to the defence reforms, at a practical level, very few Canadians would be able to read the many existing provisions and understand what the law allows. The law should be accessible to Canadians, and these reforms will help accomplish that goal.

Bill C-60 represents a responsible expansion of the citizen's power of arrest as well as a simplification of the law relating to the defence of persons and property. I urge all members to support this law and, in doing so, support the calls for reform made by law-abiding Canadians.

[Carole Morency]

Is it possible for a judge to simply adopt the wording of the condition? It is possible, but the condition as proposed by Bill C-54 also says “in accordance with conditions set by the court”. So number one, it's built into the condition.

Number two, you're quite right in terms of looking to what's in section 161 right now, which is only a condition against using a computer system for the purpose of communicating with a young person. That condition was added in 2002 when the Internet luring offence was created, because that offence was addressing the use of the means, the computer system, to communicate with a young person.

But what Bill C-54 recognizes is that offenders use the Internet computer systems for all sorts of reasons. Yes, they use it to communicate directly with a young person, and we catch that already, but they use it also to offend, in their offending pattern, whether it's to access child pornography, for example....

So the idea with Bill C-54 is to require a court to turn its mind to this each time it is sentencing a person who is convicted of one of these child sex offences and to consider whether in that instance, with the offender before them, given the nature of the offending pattern and the conduct before the court, there should be a restriction on that individual's access to the Internet or other technology that would otherwise facilitate his or her reoffending.

Courts right now do this as a matter of practice with, for example, probation orders. What the offender may do in that situation, for example, is to say, “I need to have access to the Internet for my job because my job is this...”. So the court routinely will build into that. Again, often it's under supervision determined by the probation officer--or they can designate another adult who is aware of the individual's offending history--to ensure there's adequate supervision.

Could more be provided to give greater direction to the court? I guess the concern is that the more specific you are, the greater the risk you might leave something out. The intention was to leave this in the hands of a sentencing court to determine what's appropriate in the circumstances, with submissions by the crown in terms of how you better protect the community from this offender and also by the defence counsel in terms of what's needed in that specific instance.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Well, I think it is very important, because I believe white-collar criminals are deterred, to a very great extent, by heavy sentences. Many of these individuals are well educated and sophisticated, and they play the odds on this. And if the odds are that you're going to get a year or two in prison for stealing $100 million, if you could get away with a good chunk of that, isn't it worth playing the odds?

In that respect, you have to be very clear. We have to understand that has a very big deterrent effect in the context of white-collar crime.

I appreciate the support the Bloc has given us on C-59. I think they see exactly the nature of what white-collar crime is.

[Andrew Griffith]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.

My name is Andrew Griffith. I am the director general of the citizenship and multiculturalism branch, as you mentioned, and I'm accompanied by my team, Nicole Girard and Alain Laurencelle.

I am pleased to be here to discuss Bill C-467, a private member's bill.

Over the course of the next few minutes, I would like to briefly review the changes made in the Citizenship Act of 2009, which implemented a first-generation limit on citizenship for those born abroad, and I will briefly describe what Bill C-467 proposes in relation to those changes. I will also outline some changes that we believe are needed to ensure the current bill achieves its intent.

Let me begin by talking about the changes that were made to the Citizenship Act in 2009. These changes gave a restored citizenship to most “lost Canadians”, persons who lost or never had citizenship.

Also introduced at this time was a first generation limit to citizenship by descent for those born abroad. The intent of this limit was to protect the value of Canadian citizenship for the future and to ensure citizens have a connection to Canada.

These changes meant that children born to Canadian parents in the first generation outside Canada would be Canadian at birth only if one parent was born in Canada, or one parent became a Canadian citizen by immigrating to Canada and later being granted citizenship, or naturalized.

These changes also include an exception to ensure that children born or adopted outside Canada to a parent serving abroad with the Canadian armed forces, the federal public administration, or provincial public service would be citizens, even if they were born outside Canada, in the second or subsequent generation. However, like all children born outside Canada to a Canadian parent, children of crown servants cannot pass on citizenship to children they might have or adopt abroad as a result of the first-generation limit.

Other countries with a first generation limit, like the United Kingdom and New Zealand, have dealt with this issue differently by ensuring that children born abroad to crown servants are able to pass on citizenship to their children born or adopted abroad. This is what Bill C-467 seeks to do.

Bill C-467 proposed to treat children born abroad or adopted outside Canada by crown servants and Canadian Forces personnel as children born in Canada, such that they would be able to pass on citizenship to any children they may have or adopt abroad. The government fully supports the intent of this bill in that it recognizes and values the strong contributions, commitment, and sacrifice of crown servants working abroad and of their families.

Crown servants, including our military, work to serve Canadians abroad. Crown servants serving abroad demonstrate ongoing attachment to Canada in several ways.

First, they are considered residents of Canada.

Second, crown servants pay Canadian taxes while serving abroad.

Third, they rotate regularly back to Canada. This is different from the situation of Canadian expatriates who in many cases are not considered residents of Canada, do not pay Canadian taxes, and may or may not regularly rotate back to Canada.

All of these things demonstrate a strong ongoing connection to Canada.

The government does, however, have concerns with the bill, as it is currently drafted, since it does not achieve its intended objective and would have unintended consequences. I now want to briefly outline these concerns.

As I have said, the intent of Bill C-467 is to enable the children of crown servants to pass on citizenship to any children they have or adopt outside Canada. As currently drafted, however, it does not enable the children of crown servants to pass on citizenship.

At the same time, the bill removes the section of the act that currently provides an exception to the first-generation limit for children born abroad in the second and subsequent generations. Effectively, this would deny citizenship to the children of crown servants in situations where the crown servant parent was also born abroad to a Canadian parent.

The bill also poses problems with respect to adopted persons. Specifically, the bill proposes to confer citizenship automatically to children adopted abroad by crown servants who are born or naturalized in Canada, without regard to the international obligations and requirements under the current law.

The current act already allows anyone who is born abroad and adopted by a Canadian parent who was born in Canada, whether or not that parent is a crown servant, to apply for a grant and become a citizen. The criteria for such a grant respect the international obligations that are there to protect the best interests of the child: for example, to protect against child trafficking and to respect provincial jurisdiction on adoptions.

The problem is that under Bill C-467, children adopted abroad by crown servants would no longer need to apply for a grant in the current manner, meaning they would no longer be subject to the safeguards aimed at protecting the best interests of the child.

For the reasons I have just outlined, Bill C-467 does not achieve its intended objective and would have negative unintended consequences.

The changes, however, that would be required to ensure the benefits of Bill C-467 are achieved would be relatively minor. The intent of the bill could be achieved by expanding the current exemption to ensure the children of crown servants, including the Canadian Forces, like children born in Canada, would be able to pass on citizenship to any children they have or adopt outside of Canada. Recognizing their sacrifice, commitment, and strong connection to Canada, there should be no questions about the citizenship of their children, no matter where they are born.

Just to add to this, Mr. Chairman, in June 2010, of course, as people know, the government did introduce Bill C-37, the Strengthening the Value of Canadian Citizenship Act. This bill contains a number of amendments that would strengthen the process of applying for citizenship, improve measures to address citizenship fraud, and streamline the revocation process.

Specifically, Bill C-37 proposes to: add legal authority to regulate citizenship consultants and to crack down where they help people gain citizenship fraudulently; increase penalties for fraud; strengthen residency requirements to require a physical presence; improve the government's ability to bar criminals from becoming citizens; and ensure the law supports the implementation of the first-generation limit.

Similar to Bill C-467, Bill C-37 also proposes changes to the current crown servant exception to the first-generation limit. Consistent with the objective of Bill C-467, the proposed changes to the crown servant exception in Bill C-37 would ensure that the children of crown servants serving abroad are not disadvantaged by their parents' service to Canada and are able to pass on citizenship to their children born or adopted abroad.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak before you. I would be happy to take any questions you may have.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I do want to say that I support the amendment that we should be dealing with this on the basis of members rather than parties, but even if the motion were amended in that fashion, I would still oppose the motion. Among other things, I don't think that five minutes is an adequate period of time, but I'll reserve those comments.

I would like first of all to mention that, as I understand the committee structure, although clearly we try to maintain solidarity with our caucus colleagues, we are here as individuals. Although we might try to work out how we're going to do things, it's extremely problematic to sit down and figure out that person A is going to speak to this point, person B to that point, and person C to this point.

In point of fact, we all have different ways of expressing ourselves, and we all have a valuable contribution to bring, in my opinion. It is, in a way, an infringement upon our rights as members that we should be forced by the motion before us, without the amendment, to be speaking as a bloc. In fact, there are those who would say that we shouldn't even always vote as a bloc. To have to speak as a bloc is nearly impossible.

I also want to say that there is some relevance here to what happened in the House regarding Bill S-216. It may be a good illustration of how sometimes parties and people don't apply themselves consistently.

I recall the closing hour of debate on Bill S-216. Quite frankly, the NDP member spent a great deal of time, instead of speaking about Bill S-216, speaking about Bill C-311, and clearly wasn't even adhering to even the smallest modicum of relevance in that debate, but was simply talking, I suppose, to fill time or maybe to hear her voice. I won't speculate as to her motives, but in any event it was to me quite distressing, as the mover of Bill S-216, to hear time being used on that debate to talk about Bill C-311. Of course, then it was necessary for me to respond to those comments on Bill C-311, and it just derailed the whole debate.

In the interest of maintaining our rights and privileges as individual members, I think we should be dealing with this on a per member basis.

The other thing I'd like to say, Mr. Chair, is that it has occurred to me from time to time that sometimes members--and I won't point the finger at just the opposition--think debate is unnecessary because they come to a table like this with their minds made up. Sometimes I'm as guilty as anyone of coming in with my mind made up.

Even if we have our minds made up, Mr. Chair, I think it still behooves us to stop, listen, let others speak, and hear what they have to say. Who knows? Some minor miracle may occur and we might change our mind along the way. If we come at it from the point of view that our minds are made up, well of course, then, even spending 60 seconds a person to let your opponent speak is too much, because we already know what we're going to do and we might as well move right to it.

In any event, I mentioned that even given the current amendment, I would not be able to support this motion. Quite frankly, I find the motion offensive generally. In an effort to try to improve it a little bit, I would like to propose a subamendment to the existing amendment that is on the floor, and that is to lengthen the time to 10 minutes per person.

May I speak to that amendment, Mr. Chair?

[Joseph Groia, Lawyer, Groia & Company, As an Individual]

Thank you.

These are interesting, challenging, and even dangerous times, I would say, in the Canadian capital markets. Never in my 30 years of being involved in the enforcement business of securities offences have I seen as much uncertainty as we're facing today.

I'd like to address just two aspects of Bill C-21. The first is the mandatory sentencing provisions for fraud. The second is restitution provisions.

About the mandatory sentencing provisions, I have three observations. First, they are not necessary. Second, they won't do what you hope they will do. Third, they are counterproductive. I say that having a background as a former head of enforcement at the Ontario Securities Commission and also now as a lawyer who represents both victims of fraud and those sometimes accused of fraud.

Second, I'd like to say a word about the restitution provisions. I believe they are a step in the right direction, but, like Mr. Caylor, I don't think they go far enough, and I would ask this committee to consider perhaps going further than is currently proposed in this bill.

Mandatory sentencing provisions for fraud are not necessary, because the cases you have heard about have all resulted in jail sentences far in excess of a two-year minimum. Mr. Jones was convicted in February of 2010 and received a sentence of 11 years. Vincent Lacroix of Norbourg was convicted in 2009 and received, effectively, a sentence of 18 years. In perhaps one of the most well-known and publicized prosecutions in the last decade, Mr. Drabinsky and Mr. Gottlieb, of Cineplex, received sentences of seven years and six years.

I can tell you that my experience is that judges and prosecutors take white-collar fraud very seriously. Although we call this the Standing up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act, I can tell you that every day in my practice prosecutors are doing exactly that, the best they can and with the resources they have.

Second, a mandatory jail sentence will not solve the problem. If we want to improve the protection of investors in Canada, we need to look at provisions and approaches to this problem that are much more comprehensive than those found in Bill C-21.

I'm encouraged by the efforts of Parliament to move forward with a national securities commission, not because I care about the filing of prospectuses or the raising of capital, but because I think we're long overdue for the introduction of a national enforcement agency that is concerned with the successful detection and prosecution of white-collar crime across the country. I hope that a national securities commission will do what IMET has been unable to do, which is to bring to bear specialized resources that will protect Canadian investors.

Thirdly, mandatory minimum sentences are counterproductive. Chief Justice McRuer said 58 years ago that a mandatory sentence “tends to corrupt the administration of justice by creating a will to circumvent it”. The danger you will need to consider as a committee is that the application of mandatory sentences will do exactly the opposite of what you hope to accomplish.

In the United States of America, which is perhaps the genesis of mandatory sentences and approaches to sentencing guidelines, they are moving away, under the Obama administration, from mandatory sentences and moving towards a Canadian style of system, where we attempt to have justice fit the crime, the victim, and the criminal. I would say that a mandatory approach to this problem is not the solution, and indeed, I worry that if you go forward on that basis, you will make it worse rather than better.

Secondly, the restitutionary powers that are being proposed in many respects are simply an adjunct to what is already required under the Criminal Code. When we look at restitution, there is no more important aspect, as Lincoln said, than ensuring that victims of crime are compensated as a result of their losses. We are talking about the hard-earned savings of families and of Canadians who can't afford to have their college fund or retirement fund stolen by white-collar criminals.

The difficulty, of course, is that by the time law enforcement gets there, we often see that the money is long gone. It resides in secrecy havens or resides elsewhere where it will never be found. When we talk about restitution, what we need to be talking about is a much broader approach to looking at how we compensate injured investors. Saying to the criminal that as part of her sentence she is going to have to pay the money back sounds good, but is completely ineffective.

What I think we have to look at, if we're interested in approaching this problem on a more sympathetic and a more effective basis, is how we get self-regulatory agencies and securities commissions, and other deep pockets that may have been involved in authorizing, permitting, or acquiescing in the activities of the criminals, to contribute towards a solution. I would encourage you, when you look at this bill, to ask what really we want to accomplish, and whether or not we get there under Bill C-21.

Finally, for those who might say that this is an approach to the problem that is soft on crime, my answer would be no, it's an approach to the problem that is smart about policing crime.

Thank you very much. I'd be happy to entertain questions.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you as well to our witnesses for coming.

I want to direct the short time I have to Ms. Downie.

As was mentioned by my colleague, Bill C-32 was developed after one of the largest consultations in Canadian history on copyright reform. Our government listened to stakeholders from coast to coast to coast, and we believe Bill C-32 represents what we see as a balance between creators and users.

Could you share a bit about what was heard at those consultations and how the bill addresses what was heard?

[David Plunkett, Chief Trade Negotiator, Bilateral and Regional, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to appear again before this committee to speak to Bill C-46, an act to implement the Canada-Panama free trade agreement and parallel agreements on labour and the environment.

You've introduced my colleagues at the table. If needed, I have other colleagues here with me to fill in some holes here and there.

Normally for these sorts of exercises we like to bring forward the actual chief negotiator of the agreement itself. In this case it was our colleague Cameron MacKay, but he was posted over the summer, so you'll have to put up with us. We'll try to address your questions as best we can.

Before I begin I'd like to report that we have received word from our embassy in Panama that the Panamanian government has just completed its approval process for the free trade agreement, thereby passing this agreement into law in that country. I think this is a positive development that has literally just occurred.

As this committee has seen, Canada is pursuing an ambitious trade agenda to open more doors for Canadian companies in the Americas and around the world. Panama is another country where, by deepening our commercial and social relationship, Canadians stand to gain.

Panama is a like-minded country with a strategic position in the global trading system due to its location, connectivity, and role as a global logistics hub.

According to Export Development Canada, as a link between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, Panama today processes approximately 5% of global trade. Panama has also had one of the fastest-growing economies in the Americas.

In 2008 its real gross domestic product growth was 10.7%. It posted positive growth in 2009, during the economic downturn, and Panama's real GDP is expected to grow further for 2010.

Canadian companies are aware of Panama's potential and some have already been active in this market. This activity reached the point where on September 23 of this year Export Development Canada decided to open a regional office in Panama to more effectively facilitate the growing levels of trade and investment between Canadian and Panamanian companies.

In 2009 two-way trade in merchandise trade between Canada and Panama totalled $132 million. This current figure may not be large compared to other partners, but that does not mean that it is not significant or that it cannot become more substantial in the future.

In the second quarter of 2009, Canada's merchandise exports to Panama were valued at approximately $22 million. In the same time period of this year, our exports to Panama were valued at approximately $60 million. So that's a threefold increase.

Key Canadian products driving our trade with Panama include machinery, motor vehicles and parts, pharmaceutical equipment, and pulse crops. Once the Panama agreement is in place, trade in these and other products will become easier for Canadian companies. For example, once implemented the agreement will eliminate current Panamanian tariffs on vehicles of up to 15%, industrial and construction machinery of up to 15%, pork products of up to 70%, wood products of up to 15%, and potato products of up to 81%.

In fact, this agreement will eliminate tariffs on 99.9% of recent non-agricultural imports from Canada and 94% of agricultural imports. Panama currently maintains tariffs averaging 13.4% on agricultural products, with tariffs reaching peaks as high as 260%.

Canadian investors will also see benefits from the implementation of a Panama agreement. It is already an established destination for Canadian direct investment abroad, particularly in areas such as banking and financial services, construction and mining. The stock of Canadian investment in Panama reached $93 million in 2008.

Some of the companies with existing presence in this market include CARIS, which is a geospatial software firm based out of Fredericton; McGill University; Scotiabank; Inmet Mining; SNC-Lavalin; and Hatch Ltd., an Ontario consulting company specializing in engineering and construction project management.

The current investment figure is also expected to grow in the years ahead, in part due to the many infrastructure projects planned by the Panamanian government and the private sector.

Once implemented, the Canada-Panama Free Trade Agreement will set up a stable legal framework, ensuring that Canadian businesses can invest with predictability in Panama. It will ensure the free transfer of investment capital, and protect against expropriation. It will give investors access to transparent, binding and impartial dispute settlement processes.

In short, this agreement provides Canadian investors in Panama a higher level of stability, predictability, and protection for their investments.

Canada's service sector also stands to benefit from a free trade agreement with Panama. Right now Canadian service exports are approximately $8 million a year, with room to grow. This figure is being propelled by Canadian financial engineering, mining and petroleum extractive services, construction capital projects, and environmental services. This agreement will provide service providers like these with a secure, transparent, and rules-based trading environment.

In addition, in keeping with Canada's approach to free trade agreements, the Canada-Panama Free Trade Agreement also covers environmental and labour aspects of economic integration through parallel agreements on labour cooperation and the environment. These are important agreements, and they contain strong obligations which clearly demonstrate that trade liberalization can go hand in hand with labour rights and the environment.

The members of this committee have no doubt already heard about Panama’s current canal expansion project. This $5.3 billion expansion project is expected to be completed by 2014, and it is estimated that the cargo flow will be boosted by roughly 35% through 2025.

With the Panamanian government investing in its country’s growth and strategic importance, procurement opportunities were another key driver for the negotiation of this agreement. I am pleased to say that the government procurement provisions in the agreement guarantee that Canadian suppliers have non-discriminatory access to a broad range of government procurement opportunities, including those under the responsibility of the Panama Canal Authority.

Along with the canal expansion, the Panamanian government has recently announced a five-year, $13.6 billion strategic investment plan. Under this plan, $9.6 billion will be allocated to infrastructure investments and other economic programs designed to stimulate further growth. Some of the projects the government is looking to undertake include airport construction, expansions, and upgrades; a new water treatment plant; power generation projects; agriculture irrigation systems; and a $1.5 billion metro system.

With metro systems and other projects similar to these, Canadian companies have proven to be world leaders in infrastructure.

These projects offer a number of opportunities for Canadian investors and service providers, and the Canada-Panama Free Trade Agreement is one way to ensure that Canadian companies can compete on a level playing field for these opportunities.

There is stiff competition in this dynamic market. The U.S. has recently concluded a trade agreement in Panama, and many strong interest groups in the U.S. and Panama are eager to see it implemented.

Panama’s active trade agreement also includes partners such as the European Union and Colombia. The Panamanian government is currently exploring trade deals with the European Free Trade Association countries of Iceland, Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Peru, the Caribbean, Korea, and others.

Companies that conduct business abroad rely on a number of things. A few of these are access, security, transparency, predictability, protection, rules-based environments, and the ability to establish strong relationships before their competitors do.

In the case of Panama, Canadian companies have indicated that they want to increase their activity in this market. With the free trade agreement, we are looking to provide the elements they need to operate more effectively and take greater advantage of these opportunities.

By implementing this agreement, we not only contribute to the growth of a strategically significant country in Central America, but we help Canadian companies thrive and stimulate Canada’s overall economy.

Thank you. My colleagues and I will be pleased to take any questions.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your attendance here today. Thank you to your departmental officials, as well.

I would like to congratulate you, not only on this bill but on the government's entire history on the safe communities agenda. As you know, there is Bill C-16, ending house arrest, Bill C-21, ending the faint hope clause, and sentencing for fraud. And the list goes on and on.

Minister, I know that you frequently consult with interest groups that have an interest in these particular pieces of legislation. I'm curious, with respect to this bill that's before this committee, about who some of those interest groups might be and what they've been telling you about it and if there's any opposition. Quite frankly, I can't see any. I can't imagine why anybody would be opposed to this bill, but I might be wrong.

[Carl Cotton]

No. That would be a new requirement for electricity and gas.

It is an amendment in Bill C-14 that...

[Ruth Gagnon]

I agree, Madam Chair.

Do we really want to believe that seniors should be punished even more because of their age and their health? I do not think this is the direction we want to take.

Here are our recommendations. For these reasons, we reject Bill C-31 as it is currently worded. We believe that the proposed amendments will violate the principle of the universality of social programs, as well as adversely affect the people targeted by this bill.

Of course, there is a certain logic which dictates that an inmate should not receive the entire amount he is entitled to under Old Age Security, since he is already provided with food and lodging. It seems normal that elderly inmates make a contribution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

There's just one thing, and the clerk isn't aware of this either. I was just approached the other day by some representatives of the slaughter industry. They have put out an invitation for the committee at some point to go to a plant and concentrate on the dentition or the mouthing of cattle 20 months old and younger in the slaughter industry. There are some issues out there, which I won't go into detail on here, but just discussing them with one gentleman I learned quite a bit more myself. So I put that out there for your information. That might be something we could do down the road.

Before we adjourn here, my intention is to have a steering committee here right after. Normally, first thing Tuesday we would have a report from that steering committee. I don't know how much time that report will take, so I need some direction. My intention would be that we invite witnesses for Tuesday on Bill C-474, but in order to set out future directions, so we would kind of know, I would hope we'd deal with that report. The last thing I want to do is have that report come here and have witnesses end up sitting here while we spend all day on it. So I need some comments on that.

Wayne.

Criminal Code

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. She has well expressed what the bill is. Members and the public should know that this particular bill occupies about 10 sentences in total, as an amendment to the Criminal Code. Bills S-205, S-206, S-210, and S-215 were iterations of this same bill, the same debate that has come time and again. It is as a result of things like prorogation. The member knows that the last time we did this, we all agreed that this was an important bill. The senator was sitting in the gallery. He was retiring and we wanted to get it through the House so that it could get royal assent and be proclaimed.

If the member is so consistently supportive, and the House is so consistently supportive, why is it that we have continued to have these delays and frustrations, and have not had the necessary co-operation? I am going to ask the member directly. Will she seek the support of other parties to be able to allow this bill to pass this time, so that we are not here again in another Parliament debating the same 12 sentences?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

moved that Bill S-215, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (suicide bombings), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to rise and express the government's support for Bill S-215, An Act to amend the Criminal Code. This bill is identical to Bill S-205 which was passed by the other place on June 10, 2009 and debated at second reading in the House of Commons last November. Bill S-205 was then referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in November 2009, but died on the order paper in December.

Please allow me to provide an explanation of the contents of this bill for the benefit of all hon. members.

The bill seeks to explicitly include the act of suicide bombing within the context of the Criminal Code definition of “terrorist activity”.

Suicide bombing is a monstrous way to wreak havoc because it shows the utmost contempt for human life. Suicide attacks are committed with the intention to kill and maim innocent people and inflict extensive property damage with the attackers prepared to die in the process. The damage from a suicide attack can be devastating, as demonstrated by the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York City, killing nearly 3,000 people.

It is also clear that suicide attacks are becoming an all too common terrorist tactic. The July 7, 2005 London bombings, the 2008 attacks in Mumbai, India, and the most recent bombings in Moscow, Dagestan and Afghanistan are part of a world trend of terrorizing ordinary people.

The definition of terrorist activity is currently defined in paragraph 83.01(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code. Bill S-215 seeks to amend section 83.01 of the Code by adding the following after subsection (1.1):

(1.2) For greater certainty, a suicide bombing is an act that comes within paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition “terrorist activity” in subsection (1) if it satisfies the criteria of that paragraph.

To begin with, the first part of the definition of terrorist activity incorporates, in part, criminal conduct as envisaged by the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings; one of the United Nation's counter-terrorism conventions.

Further, the general definition of terrorist activity found in the second part of the definition includes terrorist activity which intentionally causes death or serious bodily harm or endangers a person's life. Thus, it could be argued that a suicide bombing committed for a terrorist purpose already falls within the definition.

While a general definition of terrorist activity, which encompasses suicide bombing, would be sufficient for the purposes of prosecution, distinguished Canadian criminal lawyers told the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that explicitly covering suicide bombing in the Criminal Code can help prosecute and punish the organizers, teachers and sponsors of suicide bombing.

Explicitly including “suicide bombing” in the definition would also serve to denounce this horrendous practice and to educate the public that such suicide bombing is repugnant to Canadian values.

In addition, by passing this bill, Canada would show international leadership by likely being the first nation in the world to adopt this reference in its legislative definition of terrorist activity.

For these reasons, I agree that there are benefits in making an exclusive reference to suicide bombing in the definition of “terrorist activity”. However, it is also important in doing so not to adversely affect the current definition of terrorist activity. Fortunately, this bill has been drafted with precision in order to address this concern.

As mentioned earlier, the proposed amendment involves a “for greater certainty” clause that when added to 83.01 would state:

(1.2) For greater certainty, a suicide bombing is an act that comes within paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition “terrorist activity” in subsection (1) if it satisfies the criteria of that paragraph.

The bill expressly states that it is only seeking to include within the definition a suicide bombing in circumstances that satisfy the criteria for terrorist activity as stated in the definition of a terrorist activity. In this way the wording of this provision ensures that any other type of suicide bombing with no connection to terrorist activity is not included in the definition.

To be clear, the proposed amendment is a definitional clause intended to make clear that suicide bombing is included in the definition of terrorist activity only when committed in the context of a terrorist act.

The amendment is designed to provide for maximum precision to make certain that suicide bombings unrelated to terrorist activity are not caught by the definition, by ensuring that it is not overly broad or vague but still fulfills its intended purpose.

The changes brought by this bill to the definition of terrorist activity would continue to give Canada the necessary tools to prosecute persons for terrorist suicide bombings, the suicide bomber himself or herself where there has been an unsuccessful suicide bombing, as well as persons involved in the preparation or counselling of the terrorism offence.

The bill also provides that it would come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council. This provision would allow for maximum flexibility and would provide the government with an opportunity to notify the provinces before the bill comes into force.

In my view, this bill merits support. It is pursuing a worthy aim. It is seeking to denounce an abhorrent practice, one that is becoming a scourge throughout the world.

This bill is precise and circumscribed in its application. Making the legislative amendment would show that Canada is taking a strong stand in denouncing suicide bombing in the context of terrorism.

This bill has a lengthy history. It was originally introduced as Bill S-43 on September 28, 2005; reintroduced as Bill S-206 on April 5, 2006; reintroduced yet again as Bill S-210 on October 17, 2007; and reintroduced a fourth time as Bill S-205 on November 20, 2008.

Previous versions of the bill all died on the order paper. The present version was introduced on March 24, 2010. It was reviewed by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, reported without amendment, and passed without amendment.

The Toronto-based group called Canadians Against Suicide Bombing supported previous versions of this bill and created an online petition in favour of them.

Prominent Canadians who have supported previous versions of Bill S-215 include former Prime Ministers Kim Campbell, Jean Chrétien, and Joe Clark, as well as former NDP leader Ed Broadbent, former Chief Justice and Attorney General of Ontario Roy McMurtry, and Major General Lewis MacKenzie.

No other country is known to include suicide bombing specifically in its definition of terrorist activity. So Canada would be the first to signal to the rest of the world our abhorrence of these heinous and cowardly acts by adopting this bill.

The House of Commons has an incredible opportunity to be an example to the world. Bill S-215 promotes a worthy aim and I urge all members of the House to support it. By supporting and passing this bill we can ensure that anyone who organizes, teaches, or sponsors suicide bombing is criminally liable in Canada. The time has now come for the House to take action in support of this bill.

[François Lamoureux, Assistant to the Executive Committee, Confédération des syndicats nationaux (CSN)]

Good afternoon to everyone. First, I would like to thank committee members for inviting us and hearing our views on Bill C-308, which was sponsored by the member of Parliament Yves Lessard.

I would like to point out that the CSN represents 300,000 workers in every economic sector in Quebec. I say “every economic sector in Quebec” for the following reason. The CSN welcomes Bill C-308 because we believe that this bill contains elements, important tools to help fight poverty and inequity between unemployed workers in every part of Canada.

The CSN supports this bill because, in our view, it is based on an understanding of the real problems which unemployed workers in Quebec and in every economic sector are experiencing. All of the workers from the various economic sectors represented by the CSN have been harshly affected. This mainly applies to the manufacturing sector which is going through a major crisis. But there's also a major crisis in the pulp and paper industry, there is a major crisis in the shipbuilding industry, and there is a major crisis in the steelworking industry.

Today, workers who have lost their jobs in these sectors are experiencing situations which have led to family crises. The CSN agrees with all of the proposals contained in Bill C-308, but we support in particular the proposal that sets the eligibility threshold at 360 hours.

We wish to express our position as follows. Why do we need an eligibility threshold? For us, it is a matter of treating all unemployed workers, regardless of where they are in Canada, fairly. In our opinion, an unemployed worker is an unemployed worker, and this person needs a temporary income in order to look for work. Premiums are not based on the regional unemployment rate. Premiums are the same, whether one is a part-time worker, a seasonal worker, whether one works on call or full time, whether one is young, a man or a woman. Workers are not responsible for being laid off. A worker can be laid off in a region with a very low unemployment rate, either because that person was working for a company which went bankrupt, which decided to decrease its activities or terminate its operations, or a company that is operating in a shrinking economic sector.

Why do employment benefits depend on the unemployment rate of the region we live in? Do we receive less health care in a region where there are fewer sick people? No. Does it make sense for people who are laid off by a company, but who live in different administrative regions for the purposes of employment insurance, not to be eligible for the same benefits?

In our view, workers who lose their jobs in a low unemployment area suffer just as much as those who lose their jobs in a region with a high one. Losing a job is a personal tragedy which leads to a loss of income and an increase in stress. Everyone needs a temporary income to find a new job, regardless of what the regional unemployment rate is.

Canada seems to be the only industrialized country, with the exception of certain U.S. states, to apply variable eligibility standards. Why should we have a threshold of 360 hours? We think it will make the system fairer. Despite what some unemployment statistics might indicate, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is an independent government official, estimated that if the threshold was brought down to 360 hours, 165,000 additional unemployed workers would be eligible for regular benefits, excluding new recipients.

In the same document, the Parliamentary Budget Officer noted that the department estimated that over 330,000 additional unemployed workers would be eligible for benefits if the 360-hour threshold applied to everyone, that is, to all categories of beneficiaries, including those eligible for regular and special benefits.

A little earlier, questions were raised about how this would affect women who work part-time. When the eligibility criteria were changed from weeks worked to hours worked, the purpose was to help more workers qualify for benefits, at least in theory, including people working fewer than 15 hours per week. So, theoretically, these changes were supposed to benefit women, because 40% of women work in irregular employment, such as part-time or casual work. In this regard, the statistics are interesting. The eligibility criteria were established in such a way that the original objectives were not met and, in fact, they greatly penalized workers, especially women, who engage in irregular types of work.

From 1971 to 1978, a woman working 15 hours a week on a part-time basis could qualify for benefits with 120 hours, or 8 weeks. However, over time, this same worker would need between 150 and 210 hours from 1978 to 1989, 210 hours in 1990, from 150 to 300 hours from 1991 to 1994, from 180 to 300 hours from 1994 to 1997, and from 420 to 700 hours since 1997. That's more than double.

In our opinion, the 360-hour threshold is essential, because, pending a major overhaul of the system, it is the only way to restore a minimum degree of fairness for workers, whose employment regimes vary. We believe the current system discriminates against women, and that the new rules had a huge impact on women. Indeed, in total, the average number of hours worked by women was set at 33.8 hours per week, but women work, on average, 29.8 hours per week. Therefore, women need to work more hours to qualify for benefits, and they are entitled to fewer weeks of benefits. Eighteen per cent of jobs are part-time, which explains why, in 2007, barely one-third of workers, and especially women working part-time, were eligible for employment insurance benefits.

In our opinion, this bill is a step in the right direction as far as the fight against poverty is concerned, and it also creates more fairness in the way all workers are treated.

OATHS OF OFFICE

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to Bill C-1, which has just been introduced in the House. By dealing with this bill as the first order of business, the House is affirming an important principle.

This is an important constitutional principle: the government must be accountable to the House of Commons for its actions, and not the other way around.

In this spirit I would like to seek unanimous consent to adopt a motion that underscores the supremacy of the House of Commons and seeks common ground on the issue of prorogation.

I move that this House hereby establishes a special committee to be structured along the lines of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and having all the powers of a standing committee, to conduct an immediate examination into the issue of prorogation, to advise the House on the circumstances in which it is appropriate, or inappropriate, for the Prime Minister to request that Parliament be prorogued, and to repair such necessary changes to the Standing Orders or legislation, or both, and that the committee report to the House no later than April 15, 2010.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-1, An Act respecting the Administration of Oaths of Office, and sought the unanimous consent of the House to have the bill printed.