Bill C-31 (Historical)

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures

Part 1 implements income tax measures and related measures proposed in the February 11, 2014 budget. Most notably, it
(a) increases the maximum amount of eligible expenses for the adoption expense tax credit;
(b) expands the list of expenses eligible for the medical expense tax credit to include the cost of the design of individualized therapy plans and costs associated with service animals for people with severe diabetes;
(c) introduces the search and rescue volunteers tax credit;
(d) extends, for one year, the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors;
(e) expands the circumstances in which members of underfunded pension plans can benefit from unreduced pension-to-RRSP transfer limits;
(f) eliminates the need for individuals to apply for the GST/HST credit and allows the Minister of National Revenue to automatically determine if an individual is eligible to receive the credit;
(g) extends to 10 years the carry-forward period with respect to certain donations of ecologically sensitive land;
(h) removes, for certified cultural property acquired as part of a gifting arrangement that is a tax shelter, the exemption from the rule that deems the value of a gift to be no greater than its cost to the donor;
(i) allows the Minister of National Revenue to refuse to register, or revoke the registration of, a charity or Canadian amateur athletic association that accepts a donation from a state supporter of terrorism;
(j) reduces, for certain small and medium-sized employers, the frequency of remittances for source deductions;
(k) improves the Canada Revenue Agency’s ability to provide feedback to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada; and
(l) requires a listing of outstanding tax measures to be tabled in Parliament.
Part 1 also implements other selected income tax measures. Most notably, it
(a) introduces transitional rules relating to the labour-sponsored venture capital corporations tax credit;
(b) requires certain financial intermediaries to report to the Canada Revenue Agency international electronic funds transfers of $10,000 or more;
(c) makes amendments relating to the introduction of the Offshore Tax Informant Program of the Canada Revenue Agency;
(d) permits the disclosure of taxpayer information to an appropriate police organization in certain circumstances if the information relates to a serious offence; and
(e) provides that the Business Development Bank of Canada and BDC Capital Inc. are not financial institutions for the purposes of the Income Tax Act’s mark-to-market rules.
Part 2 implements certain goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed in the February 11, 2014 budget by
(a) expanding the GST/HST exemption for training that is specially designed to assist individuals with a disorder or disability to include the service of designing such training;
(b) expanding the GST/HST exemption for services rendered to individuals by certain health care practitioners to include professional services rendered by acupuncturists and naturopathic doctors;
(c) adding eyewear specially designed to treat or correct a defect of vision by electronic means to the list of GST/HST zero-rated medical and assistive devices;
(d) extending to newly created members of a group the election that allows members of a closely-related group to not account for GST/HST on certain supplies between them, introducing joint and several (or solidary) liability for the parties to that election for any GST/HST liability on those supplies and adding a requirement to file that election with the Canada Revenue Agency;
(e) giving the Minister of National Revenue the discretionary authority to register a person for GST/HST purposes if the person fails to comply with the requirement to apply for registration, even after having been notified by the Canada Revenue Agency of that requirement; and
(f) improving the Canada Revenue Agency’s ability to provide feedback to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada.
Part 2 also implements other GST/HST measures by
(a) providing a GST/HST exemption for supplies of hospital parking for patients and visitors, clarifying that the GST/HST exemption for supplies of a property, when all or substantially all of the supplies of the property by a charity are made for free, does not apply to paid parking and clarifying that paid parking provided by charities that are set up or used by municipalities, universities, public colleges, schools and hospitals to operate their parking facilities does not qualify for the special GST/HST exemption for parking supplied by charities;
(b) clarifying that reports of international electronic funds transfers made to the Canada Revenue Agency may be used for the purposes of the administration of the GST/HST;
(c) making amendments relating to the introduction of the Offshore Tax Informant Program of the Canada Revenue Agency;
(d) permitting the disclosure of confidential GST/HST information to an appropriate police organization in certain circumstances if the information relates to a serious offence; and
(e) clarifying that a person cannot claim input tax credits in respect of an amount of GST/HST that has already been recovered by the person from a supplier.
Part 3 implements excise measures proposed in the February 11, 2014 budget by
(a) adjusting the domestic rate of excise duty on tobacco products to account for inflation and eliminating the preferential excise duty treatment of tobacco products available through duty free markets;
(b) ensuring that excise tax returns are filed accurately through the addition of a new administrative monetary penalty and an amended criminal offence for the making of false statements or omissions, consistent with similar provisions in the GST/HST portion of the Excise Tax Act; and
(c) improving the Canada Revenue Agency’s ability to provide feedback to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada.
Part 3 also implements other excise measures by
(a) permitting the disclosure of confidential information to an appropriate police organization in certain circumstances if the information relates to a serious offence; and
(b) making amendments relating to the introduction of the Offshore Tax Informant Program of the Canada Revenue Agency.
In addition, Part 3 amends the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, the Excise Act, 2001 and the Excise Tax Act to clarify that reports of international electronic funds transfers made to the Canada Revenue Agency may be used for the purposes of the administration of those Acts.
Part 4 amends the Customs Tariff. In particular, it
(a) reduces the Most-Favoured-Nation rates of duty and, if applicable, rates of duty under the other tariff treatments on tariff items related to mobile offshore drilling units used in oil and gas exploration and development that are imported on or after May 5, 2014;
(b) removes the exemption provided by tariff item 9809.00.00 and makes consequential amendments to tariff item 9833.00.00 to apply the same tariff rules to the Governor General that are applied to other public office holders; and
(c) clarifies the tariff classification of certain imported food products, effective November 29, 2013.
Part 5 enacts the Canada–United States Enhanced Tax Information Exchange Agreement Implementation Act and amends the Income Tax Act to introduce consequential information reporting requirements.
Part 6 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 6 provides for payments to compensate for deductions in certain benefits and allowances that are payable under the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War-related Benefits Act.
Division 2 of Part 6 amends the Bank of Canada Act and the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to authorize the Bank of Canada to provide banking and custodial services to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Division 3 of Part 6 amends the Hazardous Products Act to better regulate the sale and importation of hazardous products intended for use, handling or storage in a work place in Canada in accordance with the Regulatory Cooperation Council Joint Action Plan initiative for work place chemicals. In particular, the amendments implement the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals with respect to, among other things, labelling and safety data sheet requirements. It also provides for enhanced powers related to administration and enforcement. Finally, it makes amendments to the Canada Labour Code and the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act.
Division 4 of Part 6 amends the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act to authorize individuals to transport beer and spirits from one province to another for their personal consumption.
Division 5 of Part 6 amends the Judges Act to increase the number of judges of the Superior Court of Quebec and the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta.
Division 6 of Part 6 amends the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act to prohibit parliamentarians from contributing to their pension and accruing pensionable service as a result of a suspension.
Division 7 of Part 6 amends the National Defence Act to recognize the historic names of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force while preserving the integration and the unification achieved under the Canadian Forces Reorganization Act and to provide that the designations of rank and the circumstances of their use are prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council.
Division 8 of Part 6 amends the Customs Act to extend to 90 days the time for making a request for a review of a seizure, ascertained forfeiture or penalty assessment and to provide that requests for a review and third-party claims can be made directly to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
Division 9 of Part 6 amends the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act to provide for the dissolution of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Board and to repeal the requirement for the President of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to submit a comprehensive report every five years on the Agency’s activities and on the impact those activities have had on regional disparity.
Division 10 of Part 6 dissolves the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and authorizes, among other things, the transfer of its assets and obligations, as well as those of its subsidiaries, to either the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency or Her Majesty in right of Canada as represented by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. It also provides that the employees of the Corporation and its subsidiaries are deemed to have been appointed under the Public Service Employment Act and includes provisions related to their terms and conditions of employment. Furthermore, it amends the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act to, among other things, confer on the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency the authority that is necessary for the administration, management, control and disposal of the assets and obligations transferred to the Agency. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts and repeals the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation Act.
Division 11 of Part 6 provides for the transfer of responsibility for the administration of the programs known as the “Online Works of Reference” and the “Virtual Museum of Canada” from the Minister of Canadian Heritage to the Canadian Museum of History.
Division 12 of Part 6 amends the Nordion and Theratronics Divestiture Authorization Act to remove certain restrictions on the acquisition of voting shares of Nordion.
Division 13 of Part 6 amends the Bank Act to add regulation-making powers respecting a bank’s activities in relation to derivatives and benchmarks.
Division 14 of Part 6 amends the Insurance Companies Act to broaden the Governor in Council’s authority to make regulations respecting the conversion of a mutual company into a company with common shares.
Division 15 of Part 6 amends the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to support the objectives of the Regulatory Cooperation Council to enhance the alignment of Canadian and U.S. regulations while protecting Canadians. It introduces measures to accelerate and streamline the regulatory process, reduce the administrative burden for manufacturers and importers and improve safety for Canadians through revised oversight procedures and enhanced availability of vehicle safety information.
The amendments to the Railway Safety Act and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 modernize the legislation by aligning it with the Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management.
This Division also amends the Safe Food for Canadians Act to authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting activities related to specified fresh fruits and vegetables, including requiring a person who engages in certain activities to be a member of a specified entity or organization. It also repeals the Board of Arbitration.
Division 16 of Part 6 amends the Telecommunications Act to set a maximum amount that a Canadian carrier can charge to another Canadian carrier for certain roaming services.
Division 17 of Part 6 amends the Canada Labour Code to allow employees to interrupt their compassionate care leave or leave related to their child’s critical illness, death or disappearance in order to take leave because of sickness or a work-related illness or injury. It also amends the Employment Insurance Act to facilitate access to sickness benefits for claimants who are in receipt of compassionate care benefits or benefits for parents of critically ill children.
Division 18 of Part 6 amends the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act to provide that fees fixed under that Act for the use of a facility provided by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency under the Safe Food for Canadians Act as well as fees fixed for services, products and rights and privileges provided by the Agency under that Act are exempt from the application of the User Fees Act.
Division 19 of Part 6 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things, enhance the client identification, record keeping and registration requirements for financial institutions and intermediaries, refer to online casinos, and extend the application of the Act to persons and entities that deal in virtual currencies and foreign money services businesses. Furthermore, it makes modifications in regards to the information that the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada may receive, collect or disclose, and expands the circumstances in which the Centre or the Canada Border Services Agency can disclose information received or collected under the Act. It also updates the review and appeal provisions related to cross-border currency reporting and brings Part 1.1 of the Act into force.
Division 20 of Part 6 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2 to, among other things,
(a) require certain applications to be made electronically;
(b) provide for the making of regulations regarding the establishment of a system of administrative monetary penalties for the contravention of conditions applicable to employers hiring foreign workers;
(c) provide for the termination of certain applications for permanent residence in respect of which a decision as to whether the selection criteria are met is not made before February 11, 2014; and
(d) clarify and strengthen requirements related to the expression of interest regime.
Division 21 of Part 6 amends the Public Service Labour Relations Act to clarify that an adjudicator may grant systemic remedies when it has been determined that the employer has engaged in a discriminatory practice.
It also clarifies the transitional provisions in respect of essential services that were enacted by the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2.
Division 22 of Part 6 amends the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006 to clarify how payments to provinces under section 99 of that Act are to be determined.
Division 23 of Part 6 amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2009 so that the aggregate amount of payments to provinces and territories for matters relating to the establishment of a Canadian securities regulation regime may be fixed through an appropriation Act.
Division 24 of Part 6 amends the Protection of Residential Mortgage or Hypothecary Insurance Act and the National Housing Act to provide that certain criteria established in a regulation may apply to an existing insured mortgage or hypothecary loan.
Division 25 of Part 6 amends the Trade-marks Act to, among other things, make that Act consistent with the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks and add the authority to make regulations for carrying into effect the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks. The amendments include the simplification of the requirements for obtaining a filing date in relation to an application for the registration of a trade-mark, the elimination of the requirement to declare use of a trade-mark before registration, the reduction of the term of registration of a trade-mark from 15 to 10 years, and the adoption of the classification established by the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks.
Division 26 of Part 6 amends the Trade-marks Act to repeal the power to appoint the Registrar of Trade-marks and to provide that the Registrar is the person appointed as Commissioner of Patents under subsection 4(1) of the Patent Act.
Division 27 of Part 6 amends the Old Age Security Act to prevent the payment of Old Age Security income-tested benefits for the entire period of a sponsorship undertaking by removing the current 10-year cap.
Division 28 of Part 6 enacts the New Bridge for the St. Lawrence Act, respecting the construction and operation of a new bridge in Montreal to replace the Champlain Bridge and the Nuns’ Island Bridge.
Division 29 of Part 6 enacts the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act, which establishes the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada (ATSSC) as a portion of the federal public administration. The ATSSC becomes the sole provider of resources and staff for 11 administrative tribunals and provides facilities and support services to those tribunals, including registry, administrative, research and analysis services. The Division also makes consequential amendments to the Acts establishing those tribunals and to other Acts related to those tribunals.
Division 30 of Part 6 enacts the Apprentice Loans Act, which provides for financial assistance for apprentices to help with the cost of their training. Under that Act, apprentices registered in eligible trades will be eligible for loans that will be interest-free until their training ends.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

My time is up. I will cut myself off, as I do others.

I want to thank you very much for being with us this afternoon and contributing to our discussion on Bill C-31.

Colleagues, we're going to take a break for a couple of minutes. Before I do, I've passed around the budget for Bill C-31. Could I have someone move this budget?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Rankin.

This is not for our witnesses, but I want to give committee members a heads-up that we'll be submitting a motion, not on Bill C-31, but to bring Minister Kenney to committee to talk about the temporary foreign worker program. We're hearing a lot of testimony on it, Chair, and I think that would benefit the committee. I know it's a moving target for the minister as well. He's spent some time making modifications or cancelling or suspending certain aspects of the program. More and more I'm of the inclination that the finance committee would do well to hear form the minister for some short time, depending on his availability.

I'm just giving committee members a heads-up on that.

[Guy Parent, Veterans Ombudsman, Chief Warrant Officer (Retired), Office of the Veterans Ombudsman]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you for inviting me to appear before this committee to share with you my views on division 1 of part 6 of Bill C-31, entitled Payments—Veterans Affairs.

I also wish to take this opportunity to briefly explain why Veterans Affairs Canada needs to take other measures to improve the support provided to injured or ill veterans and families under the new Veterans Charter. Bill C-31 will provide many veterans, survivors, or dependent children with additional financial support as a result of government's decision to cease the offsetting of the Pension Act disability pension from other financial benefits, such as the earnings loss benefit, Canadian Forces income supplement, and war veterans allowance. The one-time payment for those benefits will provide retroactive compensation to cover the timeframe from the date the decision was made to cease the practice of offsetting to the date that Veterans Affairs Canada implemented the decision.

Numerous veterans have called my office to complain that the short periods of retroactivity are not fair. They argue that the Federal Court settlement under the Manuge v. Canada case provides retroactivity back to 1976 for the Canadian Forces service income security insurance plan, known as SISIP. Consequently, they believe the retroactivity for the affected Veterans Affairs Canada programs should be provided to the date the programs came into force.

SISIP clients are receiving retroactivity going back to the start of the program, because in the context of an insurance contract, the offsetting of the disability pension as income was unlawful. However, Veterans Affairs Canada was operating within the full context of the legislation. When confronted with a new understanding of the disability pension, a policy change was made to amend the regulation to eliminate the harsh effect that this policy was having on veterans.

From an ombudsman's perspective, there is nothing unfair about what has occurred. Although both situations appear to be similar, they are structurally quite different.

I do not believe that this is a matter of fairness. The reality is that the Federal Court decision did not specifically compel the government to change the way it offset the disability pension from Veterans Affairs Canada benefits. But the government made the change anyway. There was also no obligation for the government to provide retroactivity—but it did. This ensures that veterans are not penalized because of the length of time it took to implement the new policy.

I believe that government is treating veterans and their families equitably on a go forward basis by harmonizing how Veterans Affairs Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces deal with the offsetting of the disability pension from respective financial benefits.

Let's quickly look at other issues in relation to the new Veterans Charter. The most pressing shortcomings to address, and the main source of discontent amongst veterans, are those related to financial support. Adequate financial support is a key enabler to many intended veteran outcomes, such as successful transition to a new civilian career, reasonable standard of living and quality of life, and improved physical and mental health.

There are five main issues with the financial support provided under the new Veterans Charter: first, the insufficiency of the economic financial support provided after age 65 to at-risk totally and permanently incapacitated veterans; second, the drop in income for veterans who are transitioning from a military to a civilian career, as the earnings loss benefit pays only 75% of their pre-release salary; third, the accessibility to the permanent impairment allowance and the permanent impairment allowance supplement, which is a problem for many severely impaired veterans; fourth, the unfair practice of providing a reduced earnings loss benefit to part-time reservists who suffer an injury or illness related to service; and fifth, the non-economic benefit designed to compensate for pain and suffering, the disability award. This benefit is supposed to have kept pace with civilian court awards for pain and suffering, but it has not.

The shortcomings that have been presented to government through my reports and by the many witnesses who have appeared before the House of Commons and Senate committees on veterans affairs over the past several months are impediments to achieving the charter's core objective.

[Matthew McGuire]

Additionally, we suggest that there are those in the accounting profession, who practise the accounting profession, who are not provincially regulated, such as those with foreign accreditations. We believe they should be subject to the act to address the money-laundering risks they pose as well.

We appreciate your consideration of the issues we've identified today in the course of your review of Bill C-31. We'd be delighted to answer any questions.

Thank you.

[Matthew McGuire, Chair, Anti-Money Laundering Committee, Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada]

Thank you very much.

My name is Matthew McGuire, and I am the chair of the anti-money-laundering committee of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada. I'm a CPA, a member of the Department of Finance's public-private advisory committee on AML and ATF, and a partner and the national anti-money-laundering practice leader at MNP LLP.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on the amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act proposed by Bill C-31. My comments today focus on the issues relevant to accountants and accounting firms arising from the proposed amendments and certain areas where there are amendments that we hope to see.

The Financial Action Task Force, of which Canada is a member, released its updated recommendations in February 2012. We're concerned that the proposed amendments would not completely align the PCMLTFA with the expectations of accountants and accounting firms articulated in those recommendations. In particular, FATF recommendation 22 sets an expectation that anti-money-laundering obligations for accountants should be triggered when they prepare for or carry out transactions for their clients concerning the following activities that we believe should be covered: the organization of contributions for the creation, operation, or management of companies; and the creation, operation, or management of legal persons or arrangements.

One of the greatest challenges in complying with the anti-money-laundering legislation is the determination of “reasonable grounds to suspect” in the case of a suspicious transaction report for money laundering or terrorist financing. Reporting entities need information to confirm whether their basis for suspicion of money laundering or terrorist financing is valid in order to develop meaningful processes for risk and transaction monitoring following the submission of those reports. The amendment in the bill that provides FINTRAC the ability to make public their involvement in cases where they make disclosures and there was a prosecution is laudable, but we think it could be expanded to make public any details of suspicious transactions and the indicators that supported the disclosure and their characteristics, of course without identifying the person who submitted it. That intelligence would surely help reporting entities, from accountants to banks to credit unions, improve their monitoring and reporting practices.

We are also concerned about proposed section 68.1 of Bill C-31. It would permit FINTRAC to file with the court suspicious transaction reports and other voluntary reports in the case of any action, suit, or legal proceedings brought or taken under the PCMLTFA. We submit that in the case of such filings, the details about the reporting entity—the folks who submitted the report—should be sealed so as to not discourage suspicious transaction reporting volumes and quality for fear of public scrutiny of those reports.

We'd also like clarity on the ministerial countermeasures with regard to the regulations that support those countermeasures. The full range of possible countermeasures is not known; therefore, we're concerned about the practical extent to which our members will be able to design systems and processes quickly to adhere to them, and the agility they require in that respect. We would ask that any regulation supporting these measures would provide sufficient lead time for compliance with the directives.

Common among reporting entity sectors, from banks to real estate brokers to dealers in precious metals and stones, is a frustration with identification standards, particularly in cases where the client does not present themselves physically for identification. Altogether, the program of client identification is not proportionate to risk, is burdensome compared with the regimes in other countries, and doesn't appear to be addressed in this bill. We understand, however, that the Department of Finance is addressing it in the course of regulations. We fully support a move towards a more practical and risk-based approach to knowing who we're dealing with.

In closing, we'd like to outline some of the changes we'd like to see as time moves on. Under the current regulations of the act, an “accountant” means a chartered accountant, a certified general accountant, or a certified management accountant. When the unification of the profession is complete across the provinces, we would like the act to reflect that renaming as well as the change from the CICA handbook to the CPA Canada handbook.

[Martin Lavoie]

The CITT, according to our members, is the most efficient and leanest of operations. We believe the proposed changes will weaken the CITT's administrative and analytical capacity and have potentially negative repercussions on our international trade obligations at large.

We recommend that the government remove the Canadian International Trade Tribunal from the list of tribunals covered by Bill C-31.

Thank you again, and I look forward to receiving your questions.

[Martin Lavoie, Director, Manufacturing Competitiveness and Innovation Policy, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I congratulate all the Boston Bruins fans for shaving their beards today. I still have mine.

I will start my remarks in French and finish them in English.

The situation of the manufacturing sector started to improve in 2010, after the great recession. Some macroeconomic indicators are announcing better days. Since 2011, the rate of plant capacity use has gone over 80%, which leads us to believe that capital and manufacturing expenditures will go up as the U.S. market picks up and companies will be faced with production capacity issues.

Investments in machinery and equipment are an indicator of productivity. In 2013, they were at their highest level since the recession, meaning at $14.3 billion. This fine performance is attributable in part to the federal government’s accelerated capital cost allowance. We feel that it is important for the federal government to keep a high accelerated capital cost allowance rate for machinery expenditures in order to facilitate investment and productivity gains.

The manufacturing sector currently has 1.73 million employees, whereas, in 2007, there were 2 million.

In 2013, exports almost reached their level prior to the recession. They are at $39.3 billion in goods, which is an increase of 34% since the 2009 low point.

However, research and development expenditures are a little more worrisome. Given the budget cuts to the scientific research and experimental development program, that was somewhat predictable.

Last year, research and development expenditures were close to their historic low of 2010, with a drop from 2011 and 2012. In my view, this performance is not likely to improve in the short term, given the elimination of capital expenditures in 2014 and the reduction from 20% to 15% of the research and development tax credit for large businesses from the federal government.

There are three areas in or related to Bill C-31 that are of particular concern for members. One is to keep supporting the companies that are facing labour and skills-shortage issues. While we agree that there should be no tolerance for abuse under the temporary foreign workers program, our members are concerned with the current uncertainty of the program.

We get calls from members asking, “Am I still okay buying this next piece of equipment if I need to bring those foreign workers here to set it up and to get some training?” There are a lot of questions. Not all of them are necessarily touched by the current situation with the program, but there is uncertainty.

Our member survey indicated that, year after year, more than 50% of our members are facing skills and labour shortages, and most of them think the situation will get worse in the future. One of our recommendations is to really make sure that we keep a foreign skilled workers program specifically for the advanced manufacturing sector.

The second area of concern is with division 3 of part 6 of the bill, which amends the Hazardous Products Act to implement the globally harmonized system of classification and labelling of chemicals. CME supports the benefits of harmonization of safety data sheets and labels on products used in the workplace. Canada, however, must make sure that all labelling requirements are fully harmonized with those in the U.S., so that companies do not have unnecessary costs related to relabelling products if there is a lack of harmonization.

We also think that importers of chemical products should be able to label their products here in Canada without the obligation to label them in the country of origin prior to their importation, as is currently required in the legislation.

I would like to say a few words on the Canadian International Trade Tribunal as well. Our members' competitiveness relies on high-quality assistance from the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to make sure that their competitors compete according to the rules. Division 29 of part 6 is proposing to remove the Canadian International Trade Tribunal's budget, research staff, and registry and to consolidate these into the administrative tribunals support service of Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order. This is meeting number 36 of the Standing Committee on Finance. I ask colleagues and guests to take their seats, please.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, April 8, 2014, our committee is looking at Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.

Colleagues, we have two panels here this afternoon. In our first panel we have Christopher Worswick, a professor from Carleton University. From the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, we have Martin Lavoie. From the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada, we have Matthew McGuire. From the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation, we have Fred Webber, president and CEO; and from the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman, we have retired Chief Warrant Officer Guy Parent, Veterans Ombudsman.

Welcome to the committee. Each of you will have maximum five minutes for an opening statement, and then we'll have questions from members.

We will begin with Professor Worswick, please.

[Shannon Coombs]

The CCSPA supports the amendments to the Hazardous Products Act in Bill C-31. These amendments will put in place a regulatory framework that will be harmonized with that of our major trading partner, the United States.

Included in Prime Minister Harper's and President Obama's 2011 joint action plan under the Regulatory Cooperation Council, the globally harmonized system, or GHS, for classification and labelling is a key initiative.

We are supportive of all the efforts to bring these new regulations to fruition, but the benefits of implementing the GHS can only be realized with a high level of alignment between the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Health Canada. Canada cannot meaningfully implement the GHS by creating unique Canadian requirements that will result in different or costly labels that impact trade.

Our sister associations, the Consumer Specialty Products Association and the American Cleaning Institute, have also publicly supported these amendments, and the United States has already begun its implementation of GHS for workplace chemicals. Adopting GHS in Canada will allow our members to use one safety data sheet and one label for products used in the North American workplace.

At this time we are proposing one amendment to Bill C-31. In proposed paragraph 14(b), under Hazardous Products Act, we're looking for an additional provision that would clearly allow for product that is imported into Canada for the purposes of relabelling to be compliant with the act. As it currently stands, product imported must be labelled prior to entry. Depending on your country of origin, this is not always practical. Allowing Canadian suppliers to import product for relabelling will allow industry to have more quality control and flexibility with respect to ensuring compliant labels in the workplace.

Mr. Chair, we appreciate this opportunity to comment on this important piece of legislation. We support this amendment and we look forward to working with the government on the subsequent regulations and guidance that are developed and harmonized with the U.S. OSHA.

Thank you.

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

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee. It's a pleasure to be here today to provide support and a suggested amendment for Bill C-31.

My name is Shannon Coombs, and I'm the president of the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association. I have proudly represented this industry for 15 years in our many accomplishments as a proactive and responsible industry.

The CCSPA is a national trade association that represents 37 member companies across Canada in what is collectively a $20-billion industry employing 12,000 people in more than 100 facilities. Our companies manufacture, process, package, and distribute consumer, industrial, and institutional specialty products such as soaps and detergents, domestic pest control products, disinfectants, deodorizers, and automotive chemicals, or as I call it, everything under your kitchen sink.

I have provided to the clerk copies of our one-pager, which has a picture of our products. I'm sure many of you have used them today. Also, you would have received our goody bag a few weeks ago,that is, assuming your staff chose to share it with you.

[Cyndee Todgham Cherniak, Chair, Commodity Tax, Customs and Trade Section, Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

I am Cyndee Todgham Cherniak, and I am chair of the Canadian Bar Association's commodity tax, customs and trade law section. The CBA is pleased to appear before you to provide views with respect to part 6, division 29, of Bill C-31.

The Canadian Bar Association is a national association representing over 37,500 members of the legal profession. Our primary objectives include improvement in the law and the administration of justice. It is through that lens that we have examined the portion of the bill.

We have carefully reviewed the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act, which intends to restructure the administration support services of 11 federal administrative tribunals. The CBA's position is that division 29 of part 6 should be withdrawn from Bill C-31 for further consultation with the affected tribunals, the users, and the stakeholders. Should this portion of the bill proceed, the CBA recommends, at a minimum, the removal of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal, and the Canada Industrial Relations Board from the legislation.

We must consider the potential risks of the proposed merger. My comments will focus on: one, the risk that the merged entity will be inconsistent with Canada's international obligations; two, the risk that the separation of the staff from the individual tribunals will cause delays in the litigation process; three, the risk that putting the tribunal staff in a merged entity will diminish expertise; and four, the risk that the effectiveness of the tribunals will be diminished if their impartiality and independence is brought into question.

Impartiality and independence may be affected by the reporting structure of the merged entity, which may lead to actual bias, an apprehension of bias, and/or conflicts of interest. It is proposed that the merged entity will report to the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice is also the minister responsible for the Department of Justice.

For my part, as an international trade lawyer, I will focus on the impact the merger may have on the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. Canada's international trading partners may perceive the administrative staff of the CITT as protectionist and biased in favour of the Canadian government and Canadian businesses. Under the merged entity, the staff will report to the same minister as the lawyers who bring anti-dumping and customs enforcement actions against exporters and who defend the government procurement challenges filed by foreign bidders. Canada's trading partners may therefore question the independence, impartiality, and objectivity of the decisions of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

Turning to the risk of inconsistency with Canada's international obligations, our trading partners may question whether the merged entity is contrary to Canada's obligations under various WTO agreements and free trade agreements. I can assure you that it will not take long before a lawyer raises apprehension of bias, conflict of interest, and failure to abide by treaty obligations as reasons for challenging a CITT decision in a Canadian court, before the WTO dispute settlement body, or under an FTA dispute settlement mechanism.

Canada cannot control the outcome of a decision rendered pursuant to the WTO dispute settlement understanding or a free trade agreement. Negative decisions in the international arena are a real risk. If an international trade dispute is raised against the institutional procedures of the merged entity or the Canadian International Trade Tribunal itself, Canada may find itself having to compensate a foreign party or face retaliation under an international treaty.

If the remedy ordered by an international dispute settlement panel is a monetary amount—like NAFTA chapter 11—the cost may exceed any potential cost savings of the merger or, if retaliation is in the form of increased duties on Canadian goods by a foreign trading partner, Canadian manufacturers may be negatively affected in the international marketplace. The Department of Justice lawyers will have to defend challenges, and this will by itself result in a cost to the government.

There are also risks associated with possible delays in the litigation process. The risks of litigation increase if the timeliness of tribunals are affected by the structure of the merged entity. I can tell you that, based on personal experience, the legislative timeframes of cases before the Canadian International Trade Tribunal do not allow for delays.

The preliminary injury decision in an anti-dumping or countervailing duty case is 60 days from the date of initiation. A final injury decision must be released within 120 days of the preliminary determination of dumping. Cases before the CITT are not like litigation before the courts, which can drag on for years.

Lastly, there's a risk that the expertise of the tribunals may be diluted by the merger of the administrative support services. I can tell you from my own personal experience that the staff at the Canadian International Trade Tribunal have specialized expertise in trade matters that is unlike the expertise of the other 10 tribunals' staff.

Staff at the other tribunals cannot quickly step into the role of a CITT researcher who prepares anti-dumping injury questionnaires or compiles data for the pre-hearing staff report. Staff at the other tribunals do not have the same economic and trade analysis skills that the staff at the CITT have developed over the years. Legal support services staff would not have the same in-depth knowledge of Canada's international obligations.

Finally, the CITT staff receive confidential information from the parties who appear before the tribunal, and this confidential information is fundamental to finding the facts, applying the law, and coming up with the correct decision. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal staff are sensitive to the issues of confidentiality within the CITT act and the tribunal rules.

The credibility of the tribunal is at stake. We would like you to consider these important concerns in your deliberations.

Thank you.

[Sean Bruyea, Retired Captain, Columnist, Media Personality and Academic Researcher, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, for the invitation. You have much on your plate, so I will skip further formalities.

On May 29, 2012, coincidental with the announcement not to appeal the class action lawsuit involving the Canadian Forces insurance plan known as SISIP, the Government of Canada committed to cease offsetting the Pension Act pain and suffering monthly payments from four other plans: the earnings loss benefit, the Canadian Forces income support, the war veterans allowance, and civilian war-related benefits. I will speak specifically about the earnings loss benefit, or ELB.

The ELB is an income loss program and a key pillar of the controversial legislation commonly known as the new Veterans Charter. Bill C-31 provides retroactivity in returning to the veterans the Pension Act pain and suffering deduction offsets of ELB from May 29 to September 2012.

During the launch of the new Veterans Charter, including the earnings loss benefit, on April 6, 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised that:Our troops’ commitment and service to Canada entitle them to the very best treatment possible. This Charter is but a first step towards according Canadian veterans the respect and support they deserve.

If the government decided that the policy of offsetting monthly Pension Act payments for ELB is not what our troops deserved on May 29, 2012, did our troops deserve the unfair deductions on May 28, 2012? For that matter, did our troops deserve the unfair deductions for any day back to April 6, 2006, when the earnings loss benefit program was created?

ELB is clearly an income loss program. The Pension Act is indisputably a program for pain and suffering. Our courts have long stipulated that income loss is to be maintained completely separate from general damages, otherwise known as pain and suffering payments. No other provincial civilian workplace insurance program in Canada deducts pain and suffering payments from income loss programs. Why have our disabled veterans and their families been subjected to an unjustifiable lesser standard from April 2006 to May 2012?

Even if we ignore the strong legal precedent of not deducting pain and suffering payments from income loss programs, this arbitrary retroactive date of May 29, 2012, comes across as petty. The indefensible retroactive date creates an additional class of veterans once again. Those in the SISIP class action lawsuit had their problem rectified back to when SISIP began offsetting Pension Act payments. Why are ELB recipients not accorded the same dignity?

Justice, or the appearance of justice being done, is plainly not being offered in Bill C-31. Should you pass the legislation as is, you will force the most disabled veterans under the flagship Conservative veterans benefit program known as the new Veterans Charter to enter the paralytic morass of years of unnecessary and bitter legal battles. These battles will sap the health, the family stability, and the dignity of military veterans and their families.

We say that we honour our injured veterans as a nation and as a government, but Parliament's actions often speak otherwise. Before we hesitate because of cost, please remember that these disabled veterans never hesitated when Parliament ordered them into harm's way, knowing full well that many would die or become disabled for life.

Major Todd, the architect of the Pension Act philosophy of pain and suffering payment, stated in 1919 that Those who give public service do so not for themselves alone but for the society of which they are a part. Therefore, each citizen should share equally in the suffering which war brings to his nation.

This is just one tangible and clear example of the debt we keep promising to pay to our veterans, but we do not

What is also troubling about Bill C-31 is what is absent: the further debts we must pay. The earnings loss benefit is not being increased to 100% of military release salary while providing lost potential career earnings, yet civilian workplace compensation schemes recognize this loss potential. Boosting ELB to 100% has been emphatically pushed by the major veterans groups and the two VAC advisory groups established to study the matter, as well as the House committee on veterans affairs.

There are also no provisions for providing child care and spousal income assistance to the most disabled veterans. The most disabled are not supported for education upgrades or to pursue any employment opportunity to better themselves or improve their esteem. The monthly supplement provided under Bill C-55 in 2011 is denied those seriously disabled veterans collecting the exceptional incapacity allowance under the Pension Act.

My first of now eight parliamentary committee appearances was in front of the Senate version of this committee, the national finance committee, on May 11, 2005. I raised then and continue to raise serious concerns about the charter. My concerns were generally ignored by government, but not by veterans and the public. Had substantive action been taken then, we would not be in year eight of the tragic mess regarding how our veterans are mistreated and often pushed aside by the new Veterans Charter and Veterans Affairs Canada.

I also warned Parliament of the harassment of those who oppose the new Veterans Charter. This was also ignored, only to explode on the national media agenda five years later, with what some call the largest privacy breach in Canadian history—my privacy. As such, provisions such as those in Bill C-31 that would allow CRA to voluntarily hand over confidential taxpayer data to the police without approval of a judge send shivers down my spine, as they should for every Canadian. Surely the magnitude of Bill C-31 is disconcerting. The consequence of ignoring Canadians' and veterans' input is indeed a perilous road.

Undoubtedly, parliamentarians and the public service work hard for democracy. However, none can claim to have sacrificed what our military has sacrificed to preserve our democratic way of life. The omnibus budget bill does not meet Canada's democratic standard. It allows many changes to Canada's laws to enter the back door of government policy without full participatory and democratic due process. Ramming through legislation without proper scrutiny is an insult to the dignity of all that the military has sacrificed in Canada's name and at Parliament's order.

The omnibus budget bill is a perversion of democracy, in my mind, a democracy for which almost 120,000 Canadians have lost their lives and for which hundreds of thousands more have lived and continue to live with lifelong disabilities as a result of serving our nation.

Surely Parliament can do better.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting back to order.

We are resuming discussion, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, April 8, 2014, on a consideration of Bill C-31, an Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014.

I want to thank our second panel of guests for being with us here and by video conference.

First of all we have, as an individual, retired captain Mr. Sean Bruyea.

From the Canadian Bar Association, we have Cindee Todgham Cherniak.

Welcome to the committee.

From the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association, we have Ms. Shannon Coombs, president.

Welcome.

From the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, we have vice-president Mr. Gordon Lloyd.

As an individual, we want to welcome, from Vancouver, Professor Dominique Gross from Simon Fraser University's School of Public Policy.

Thanks to all of you for being with us.

You each have five minutes maximum for an opening statement, and we will then go to members' questions.

We'll begin with Captain Bruyea, please.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Therefore, what that means, in lay terms, is that if the intergovernmental agreement or the provisions of Bill C-31 are in conflict with the Privacy Act, the Privacy Act would prevail.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Is it your view that this has had sufficient study, that FATCA, in all of its complexity, has had sufficient study? If not, do you agree with our position that it ought to be taken out of Bill C-31 and given further study?