Bill C-4 (Historical)

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures proposed in the March 21, 2013 budget. Most notably, it
(a) increases the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 and indexes the new limit to inflation;
(b) streamlines the process for pension plan administrators to refund a contribution made to a Registered Pension Plan as a result of a reasonable error;
(c) extends the reassessment period for reportable tax avoidance transactions and tax shelters when information returns are not filed properly and on time;
(d) phases out the federal Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations tax credit;
(e) ensures that derivative transactions cannot be used to convert fully taxable ordinary income into capital gains taxed at a lower rate;
(f) ensures that the tax consequences of disposing of a property cannot be avoided by entering into transactions that are economically equivalent to a disposition of the property;
(g) ensures that the tax attributes of trusts cannot be inappropriately transferred among arm’s length persons;
(h) responds to the Sommerer decision to restore the intended tax treatment with respect to non-resident trusts;
(i) expands eligibility for the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation equipment to include a broader range of biogas production equipment and equipment used to treat gases from waste;
(j) imposes a penalty in instances where information on tax preparers and billing arrangements is missing, incomplete or inaccurate on Scientific Research and Experimental Development tax incentive program claim forms;
(k) phases out the accelerated capital cost allowance for capital assets used in new mines and certain mine expansions, and reduces the deduction rate for pre-production mine development expenses;
(l) adjusts the five-year phase-out of the additional deduction for credit unions;
(m) eliminates unintended tax benefits in respect of two types of leveraged life insurance arrangements;
(n) clarifies the restricted farm loss rules and increases the restricted farm loss deduction limit;
(o) enhances corporate anti-loss trading rules to address planning that avoids those rules;
(p) extends, in certain circumstances, the reassessment period for taxpayers who have failed to correctly report income from a specified foreign property on their annual income tax return;
(q) extends the application of Canada’s thin capitalization rules to Canadian resident trusts and non-resident entities; and
(r) introduces new administrative monetary penalties and criminal offences to deter the use, possession, sale and development of electronic suppression of sales software that is designed to falsify records for the purpose of tax evasion.
Part 1 also implements other selected income tax measures. Most notably, it
(a) implements measures announced on July 25, 2012, including measures that
(i) relate to the taxation of specified investment flow-through entities, real estate investment trusts and publicly-traded corporations, and
(ii) respond to the Lewin decision;
(b) implements measures announced on December 21, 2012, including measures that relate to
(i) the computation of adjusted taxable income for the purposes of the alternative minimum tax,
(ii) the prohibited investment and advantage rules for registered plans, and
(iii) the corporate reorganization rules; and
(c) clarifies that information may be provided to the Department of Employment and Social Development for a program for temporary foreign workers.
Part 2 implements certain goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed in the March 21, 2013 budget by
(a) introducing new administrative monetary penalties and criminal offences to deter the use, possession, sale and development of electronic suppression of sales software that is designed to falsify records for the purpose of tax evasion; and
(b) clarifying that the GST/HST provision, exempting supplies by a public sector body (PSB) of a property or a service if all or substantially all of the supplies of the property or service by the PSB are made for free, does not apply to supplies of paid parking.
Part 3 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Employment Insurance Act to extend and expand a temporary measure to refund a portion of employer premiums for small businesses. It also amends that Act to modify the Employment Insurance premium rate-setting mechanism, including setting the 2015 and 2016 rates and requiring that the rate be set on a seven-year break-even basis by the Canada Employment Insurance Commission beginning with the 2017 rate. The Division repeals the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board Act and related provisions of other Acts. Lastly, it makes technical amendments to the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to remove the prohibition against federal and provincial Crown agents and federal and provincial government employees being directors of a federally regulated financial institution. It also amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act to remove the obligation of certain persons to give the Minister of Finance notice of their intent to borrow money from a federally regulated financial institution or from a corporation that has deposit insurance under the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act to clarify the rules for certain indirect acquisitions of foreign financial institutions.
Division 4 of Part 3 amends the Criminal Code to update the definition “passport” in subsection 57(5) and also amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to update the reference to the Minister in paragraph 11(1)(a).
Division 5 of Part 3 amends the Canada Labour Code to amend the definition of “danger” in subsection 122(1), to modify the refusal to work process, to remove all references to health and safety officers and to confer on the Minister of Labour their powers, duties and functions. It also makes consequential amendments to the National Energy Board Act, the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act.
Division 6 of Part 3 amends the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act to change the name of the Department to the Department of Employment and Social Development and to reflect that name change in the title of that Act and of its responsible Minister. In addition, the Division amends Part 6 of that Act to extend that Minister’s powers with respect to certain Acts, programs and activities and to allow the Minister of Labour to administer or enforce electronically the Canada Labour Code. The Division also adds the title of a Minister to the Salaries Act. Finally, it makes consequential amendments to several other Acts to reflect the name change.
Division 7 of Part 3 authorizes Her Majesty in right of Canada to hold, dispose of or otherwise deal with the Dominion Coal Blocks in any manner.
Division 8 of Part 3 authorizes the amalgamation of four Crown corporations that own or operate international bridges and gives the resulting amalgamated corporation certain powers. It also makes consequential amendments and repeals certain Acts.
Division 9 of Part 3 amends the Financial Administration Act to provide that agent corporations designated by the Minister of Finance may, subject to any terms and conditions of the designation, pledge any securities or cash that they hold, or give deposits, as security for the payment or performance of obligations arising out of derivatives that they enter into or guarantee for the management of financial risks.
Division 10 of Part 3 amends the National Research Council Act to reduce the number of members of the National Research Council of Canada and to create the position of Chairperson of the Council.
Division 11 of Part 3 amends the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act to reduce the permanent number of members of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.
Division 12 of Part 3 amends the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act to allow for the appointment of up to three directors who are not residents of Canada.
Division 13 of Part 3 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to extend to the whole Act the protection for communications that are subject to solicitor-client privilege and to provide that information disclosed by the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada under subsection 65(1) of that Act may be used by a law enforcement agency referred to in that subsection only as evidence of a contravention of Part 1 of that Act.
Division 14 of Part 3 enacts the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Fund Act, which establishes the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Fund. The Division also repeals the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act.
Division 15 of Part 3 amends the Conflict of Interest Act to allow the Governor in Council to designate a person or class of persons as public office holders and to designate a person who is a public office holder or a class of persons who are public office holders as reporting public office holders, for the purposes of that Act.
Division 16 of Part 3 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to establish a new regime that provides that a foreign national who wishes to apply for permanent residence as a member of a certain economic class may do so only if they have submitted an expression of interest to the Minister and have subsequently been issued an invitation to apply.
Division 17 of Part 3 modernizes the collective bargaining and recourse systems provided by the Public Service Labour Relations Act regime. It amends the dispute resolution process for collective bargaining by removing the choice of dispute resolution method and substituting conciliation, which involves the possibility of the use of a strike as the method by which the parties may resolve impasses. In those cases where 80% or more of the positions in a bargaining unit are considered necessary for providing an essential service, the dispute resolution mechanism is to be arbitration. The collective bargaining process is further streamlined through amendments to the provision dealing with essential services. The employer has the exclusive right to determine that a service is essential and the numbers of positions that will be required to provide that service. Bargaining agents are to be consulted as part of the essential services process. The collective bargaining process is also amended by extending the timeframe within which a notice to bargain collectively may be given before the expiry of a collective agreement or arbitral award.
In addition, the Division amends the factors that arbitration boards and public interest commissions must take into account when making awards or reports, respectively. It also amends the processes for the making of those awards and reports and removes the compensation analysis and research function from the mandate of the Public Service Labour Relations Board.
The Division streamlines the recourse process set out for grievances and complaints in Part 2 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act and for staffing complaints under the Public Service Employment Act.
The Division also establishes a single forum for employees to challenge decisions relating to discrimination in the public service. Grievances and complaints are to be heard by the Public Service Labour Relations Board under the grievance process set out in the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The process for the review of those grievances or complaints is to be the same as the one that currently exists under the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, grievances and complaints related specifically to staffing complaints are to be heard by the Public Service Staffing Tribunal. Grievances relating to discrimination are required to be submitted within one year or any longer period that the Public Service Labour Relations Board considers appropriate, to reflect what currently exists under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Furthermore, the Division amends the grievance recourse process in several ways. With the sole exception of grievances relating to issues of discrimination, employees included in a bargaining unit may only present or refer an individual grievance to adjudication if they have the approval of and are represented by their bargaining agent. Also, the process as it relates to policy grievances is streamlined, including by defining more clearly an adjudicator’s remedial power when dealing with a policy grievance.
In addition, the Division provides for a clearer apportionment of the expenses of adjudication relating to the interpretation of a collective agreement. They are to be borne in equal parts by the employer and the bargaining agent. If a grievance relates to a deputy head’s direct authority, such as with respect to discipline, termination of employment or demotion, the expenses are to be borne in equal parts by the deputy head and the bargaining agent. The expenses of adjudication for employees who are not represented by a bargaining agent are to be borne by the Public Service Labour Relations Board.
Finally, the Division amends the recourse process for staffing complaints under the Public Service Employment Act by ensuring that the right to complain is triggered only in situations when more than one employee participates in an exercise to select employees that are to be laid off. And, candidates who are found not to meet the qualifications set by a deputy head may only complain with respect to their own assessment.
Division 18 of Part 3 establishes the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board to replace the Public Service Labour Relations Board and the Public Service Staffing Tribunal. The new Board will deal with matters that were previously dealt with by those former Boards under the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Public Service Employment Act, respectively, which will permit proceedings under those Acts to be consolidated.
Division 19 of Part 3 adds declaratory provisions to the Supreme Court Act, respecting the criteria for appointing judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you.

When the staff came to talk to us on Bill C-4, they talked about 80% being frivolous, and yet we know that there is no data available for voluntary compliance, and that a lot of those issues do occur. And my experience—I agree with you—in my previous life has been that normally people will carry on working in places where there could be danger. It takes a lot of education, and a lot of courage to take that next step.

Changes to the definition of the word “danger” are puzzling to me. We're saying it's not really going to change anything. I usually think if it isn't going to change anything...

[Sari Sairanen, Director, Health, Safety and Environment, Unifor]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Unifor is the largest private sector union, with 300,000 members, with over 80,000 women and men working in the federal sector, which includes rail, transportation, airlines, and communications, just to name a few. On behalf of our members, we are concerned that Bill C-4 is not consistent with enhancing workplace protections and will roll the dice with the health and safety of our federal workers.

At the outset, it is worth noting that none of these changes were the product of collaboration or even consultation. The changes proposed in Bill C-4 alter health and safety protections that have only recently been put into place in the year 2000. That is a relatively short amount of time in the life of a piece of legislation. The Canada Labour Code changes of 2000 were reached after extensive consultation with labour, employers, and government, and were themselves a microcosm of what can be achieved through a tripartite system of collaboration.

Words do matter. They certainly matter when they're the words that make up our laws and legislation, and in particular with the laws and legislation that protect workers and public safety.

When we look at the definition of danger, the proposal is a narrower interpretation of what is considered to be workplace danger. Making changes to the wording of a law is to change its original meaning. Gone is the recognition that the outcome of exposure to hazard might not occur immediately. Gone is the explicit language that recognizes that a potential threat to a worker's reproductive system is worth protecting. That threat of exposure to mutagens is a very real threat.

On the right to refuse, as we look at how the right of refusal happens in workplaces, the government maintains that 80% of all work refusals are not justified and are frivolous. What is that number based on? We don't know what the number is based on. Far from progressing frivolous complaints to HRSDC, we are of the opinion that workers are reluctant to invoke their right to refuse even in the face of bona fide dangerous work. Therefore, instead of watering down safety rights around unsafe work, we should be enhancing them, ensuring that workers feel safe from reprisal by reporting unsafe work. In addition, we should be enhancing enforcement and inspection, not rolling back the clock on hard-fought health and safety gains.

When we look at the work refusal investigation, the employer will prepare a written report—this is something new. The workplace committee will prepare a report—this is something new. The employer may provide further information and request reconsideration—again, something new. The employer shall make a decision—something new. If the employer disagrees, it will notify the worker in writing—something new. If the worker continues refusal, the employer will notify the minister and provide a report—something new. The minister will decide whether to continue.

The new emphasis on the immediacy of the danger to the worker is lost in the new prolonged procedure for addressing that danger. Formerly, the legislative process lent itself to taking minutes or hours to determine if the safety officer was required. However, the new proposal, with an emphasis on written reports, would appear to take hours or days, especially in the case of a 24/7 operation, such as the railways or even airlines.

We're quite concerned with the potential of the minister's refusal to investigate work refusals. We're concerned not only by the paper obstacle that seems to be in the new proposal, but also the vulnerability to discipline. To classify as trivial, vexatious, or in bad faith does not certainly bring forward confidence in workers to bring their issues forward. Also, there is no statutory right to appeal from the minister's decision. In addition, the internal responsibility system points out that everyone is concerned with health and safety. Certainly the new proposals are not in that direction. Health and safety officers are neutral and trained. How is a minister going to fulfill that position?

Healthy and safe working conditions are the right of every worker, and a scheme that strips those rights away and puts workers in harm's way is, in a word, a deadly combination.

When we look at some of our workplaces, for example, at CP Rail, despite ever-increasing pressures to increase production and perform new processes, in 2013 to date our membership of 2000 workers under federal jurisdiction progressed two work refusals under section 128, both resulting in directions under paragraph 145(2)(a) for the employer to stop the dangerous activity—only two work refusals in such a large body. We would therefore argue that any attempt to water down the language in such important legislation is unacceptable. Laws and regulations are only as strong as the education and enforcement that go with them and how those laws and regulations are practised in a workplace and enforced by those charged with the protection of our well-being as workers.

We cannot rely totally on employers to make our workplaces safe, because employers have, by their existence, a goal that competes with safety and is to make a profit. We should accept that as a given and build from there. This is also why we need vigilant and proactive government involvement. This does not happen by watering down rights and, in essence, the legislative authority held by those charged with enforcing our safety.

Since 2000, while lost time to injuries in Canada has been steadily declining, fatalities have remained fairly constant, with over 900 deaths each year. It must be noted that the current legislation, with its superior protections for workers, has failed to reduce these fatalities. This begs the question of why we are not instead looking for ways to enhance worker occupational health and safety, rather than eroding their workplace safety rights. We therefore oppose the changes to the health and safety provisions contained in Bill C-4.

That concludes my report.

Offshore Health and Safety Act

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. I raised the concern in my speech that the changes to the definitions in Bill C-4 would weaken the rights that have been provided to offshore workers: the right to refuse and the right to work safely. That is a concern.

As the member said, we need to make sure that people are held accountable and that we have safe and healthy workplaces. That is what this legislation is all about, to make sure we never have an Ocean Ranger again, to make sure we never have a Cougar flight 491 again in the offshore, to make sure we never have a disaster the scale of the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the gulf.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for his remarks. As a former miner myself, I was in the Brunswick mine in 1976 when six people were killed underground in 18 months. That is why we passed legislation on the right to refuse work.

I remember the Westray act, which—as the hon. member said just now—was designed to help the loved ones of the people who worked there. In Bill C-4, we see that the government wants to change the definition of unsafe work. It says that people are refusing too much work.

Is Parliament able to take the responsibility for passing a bill that actually does not make responsible people responsible? It is irresponsible on the part of the government to introduce bills that will encourage companies to adopt unsafe work practices. That is what will happen, just as it happened at the Westray mine, at the Brunswick mine, and at many other places of work. With the Conservative government, we are moving backwards.

Does the hon. member agree with me?

[Kin Choi, Assistant Deputy Minister, Labour Program, Compliance, Operations and Program Development, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for inviting us.

I am happy to be appearing before you as the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Labour Program. I am joined by my colleague Brenda Baxter, Director General of the Workplace Directorate.

For over 100 years now, the labour program has been protecting the rights and the well-being of both workers and employers in the federally regulated sectors. This includes creating and maintaining safe and healthy workplaces.

The changes that are being proposed in part 3, division 5, of Bill C-4 will strengthen the longstanding commitment even more.

The role of the Labour Program is to support workplace parties in order to enable them to meet their obligations and ensure that the Canadian Labour Code is respected.

I think we—and I mean the larger “we” in the federal jurisdictions—do a pretty good job overall. For example, the number of disabling injuries in the industry under federal jurisdiction has steadily declined by some 22% from 2007 to 2011, but we certainly need to do more, as every accident is one too many.

Here are the amendments to the Canada Labour Code that we're proposing: first, to strengthen the internal responsibility system; second, to clarify the definition of danger; and third, confer to the Minister of Labour the authority to delegate powers, duties, and functions to health and safety officers.

These amendments will place the onus on resolving workplace safety issues where it belongs: with employers and employees. Specifically, workplace committees and health and safety representatives will have a greater role to play in resolving refusal-to-work situations.

The new process would enhance the internal responsibility system, which would improve protection for Canadian workers and allow the labour program to better focus our attention on critical issues affecting the health and safety of Canadians in their workplaces.

Amendments are proposed to clarify the definition of danger, since over the last 10 years over 80% of refusals to work have ended with no danger decisions, even accounting for appeals.

That has no impact on employees' right to refuse dangerous work. That is a fundamental right that will remain in the Canadian Labour Code.

Those amendments will also help us increase the support we provide to health and safety officers, in addition to promoting consistent decision making across the country.

The Minister of Labour would have the authority to delegate powers, duties, and functions to health and safety officers, who would continue to do their important job of ensuring that workplaces are fair, safe, and productive. This is not about cutting costs, and it's certainly not about reducing the number of health and safety officers. These changes will simply ensure that the time of health and safety officers is used more proactively and effectively to enforce our regulations and to promote prevention.

It's important to point out that the fundamental rights and the protection mechanisms set out in the code will remain unchanged. The amendments are aimed at simplifying the procedures and practices in order to accelerate and increase the quality of decisions and results. The recourse mechanism will remain accessible to all parties.

Again, let me reiterate that fundamental rights and protections for employees remain enshrined in the code.

We are convinced that the changes we are proposing will improve outcomes for the workplace.

We would be pleased to respond to your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

I call the meeting to order. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome.

This is meeting number 4 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Today we are continuing our study on the subject matter of clauses 176 to 238, divisions 5 and 6 of part 3 of Bill C-4, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

For our first hour today we have witnesses here from the department, Mr. Kin Choi and Ms. Brenda Baxter.

I will turn the floor over to our officials for their presentation.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to stand and speak for a few moments on Bill C-5, an act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and other acts and to provide for certain other measures. This is a piece of legislation that exists as a result of negotiations that have been going on for literally 12 years between the federal government, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia. It mirrors legislation that has already been passed in both of those provincial legislatures, so we will not be amending it here. If we were to do so, it would mean that they would have to go back to the drawing board.

Bill C-5 is an attempt to strengthen offshore health and safety practices in the oil and gas industry, which have been separated and left to regulation. That is a problem that I have certainly seen with other legislation. In my former jurisdiction of Nova Scotia, the government for 20 years did the same thing with the Trade Union Act, on the one hand, and with health and safety legislation on the other. What we found out, certainly in the case of health and safety legislation, was that it was not good enough to do it all by regulation. We had to make sure that the rules of the road, the principles, were properly articulated. The regulations would be there to make sure that those principles were carried forward.

It is good to see that the three governments involved here see that this is important to have done. Therefore, we will be supporting the bill at second reading.

The bill would put the practice into legislation based on three basic principles. Number one is that offshore occupational health and safety laws must provide workers with protection that is at least as good as what exists for onshore workers. This is a situation that has existed for far too many years and is finally being addressed here. Number two is the protection of employee rights; that is, to know, to participate, to refuse, and to be protected from reprisal will be covered in the bill. Number three is support for an occupational health and safety culture that recognizes the shared responsibility in the workplace.

We support this legislation. We think it is a step in the right direction for offshore safety, but more work still needs to be done. We hope that the federal government continues to work with the provinces to strengthen offshore safety regulations and that an independent stand-alone safety regulator is created for the future. That last point is something that came out of the Wells commission that recommended that a stand-alone regulator be put in place. It was something that was not agreed to by the parties and therefore does not exist. We think it is very important. I am going to speak a little more about that here this afternoon.

As usual, a bill like this comes to the floor of the legislature as a result of hard lessons, and in this case, lessons learned from years of offshore tragedies.

It has been more than 30 years since Canada's worse offshore disaster. In 1982, 84 people were killed when the drill rig Ocean Ranger sank off Newfoundland. A royal commission was subsequently convened in 1984, and that commission criticized the industry for poor safety training and equipment and lax inspections.

I want to take a moment to read a section from a book that was written by a good friend of mine, someone who lost her brother in that disaster back in 1982.

Susan Dodd wrote an exceptional piece of work called The Ocean Ranger, Remaking the Promise of Oil, which not only talks about that disaster, what led to it, what resulted from it, and the devastation it caused to the families involved but very much documents the problems that resulted as a consequence of legislators not paying attention. It was a result, frankly, of the power of the oil and gas sector to basically have its way and go about its business and of governments saying, “Thank you very much. We'll take some royalty revenue from you, but we'll try not to get in your way”.

I want to read, if I may, a passage from the book, which I think underlines why it is so important that we not only pay attention to the bill but that we also think about the role we play here as legislators to ensure that we do everything in our power to provide the laws, the regulations, the rules of the road, and the protections that would ensure that people living and working in this country and for this country are safe.

Let me quote:

The shock of the Ocean Ranger disaster was not that oil production was dangerous, but rather the realization that governments had betrayed people's faith. People trusted governments to use reasonable regulation to mitigate the risks of oil jobs. That trust was misplaced. There were no provincial safety regulations in the Newfoundland offshore when my brother and his eighty-three co-workers died.... Time and again, publics trust governments to ensure that companies operate with reasonable prudence. Time and again we are shocked by a new disaster caused by corporate negligence. We say we will “never forget.”

We do it all the time in this House.

Then we forget. And then it happens again.

The author goes on to talk about the fact that the most recent example is 2010, when the Deepwater Horizon disaster killed 11 workers and injured 17 more, resulting in the worst U.S. marine oil spill in history.

It is a fascinating book. I urge all members, or anyone interested, to take a look at it. Again, it is The Ocean Ranger, Remaking the Promise of Oil, and the author is Susan Dodd.

It is particularly important for those of us living on the coast, and in my case, living on the east coast. We know that Shell has invested over $1 billion to further explore an oil field off our coast. BP, in another area offshore, is further investing nearly $1 billion in exploring a similar development.

In other words, we cannot pretend that it is not coming again, that we are not going to be out there again. There are rigs out there off Newfoundland. We know that there are drilling rigs and exploratory rigs out there. There is equipment moving around our coast. We need to make sure that the people working in our offshore and the people servicing the offshore are provided with the necessary protections to ensure that these kinds of disasters do not happen again. It is important that we do that now.

I should say, of course, that a more recent review of offshore safety came in 2009, after the crash of Cougar Flight 91, which killed 17 people. The Wells inquiry into the Cougar crash made a number of recommendations, most notably the creation of an autonomous and dedicated safety regulator, which is not included.

My colleague, the member for St. John's East, raised a question in the House today about a recommendation that has gone before transport to ensure that airplanes and helicopters are able to operate an hour after they no longer have any oil or have run dry. It is an important safety measure that would have ensured that the disaster I referred to, Cougar Flight 91, did not happen. We continue to ask the government questions about why it is that it is unwilling to introduce that particular requirement for the offshore.

While I am disappointed, as others on this side have said, that this bill does not call for an independent safety regulator, I believe that it is a step in the right direction.

Again, it implements many of the principles of occupational health and safety. As I have said, offshore occupational health and safety laws must provide workers with protections that are at least as good as those that exist for onshore workers. The protection of employee rights to know, to participate, to refuse, and to be protected from reprisal needs to be included.

That is an issue that has been raised in this session of the House in relation to Bill C-4, the omnibus budget bill. In there are changes that lessen the responsibilities of health and safety inspectors. We are concerned about the implications those changes would have on Bill C-5. As I said, this bill talks about setting up a balance between health and safety protections onshore and offshore and about providing clear protection of the rights of employees to know, to participate, to refuse, and to be protected from reprisal. We are concerned that the omnibus budget bill, in fact, lessens those rights in federal jurisdictions and therefore may have some implications here. I understand that in a recent briefing on this bill, we were unable to get answers to those particular questions, but we will continue to ask.

Finally is support for an occupational health and safety culture that recognizes the shared responsibilities in the workplace.

As I have suggested to members, we will continue to see further exploration, further development of natural resources, off our coasts. We need to make sure that we provide the environmental protections necessary, if we are going to go forward, to ensure that no problems exist and that no problems are created that endanger our natural resources, coastlines, industries, fisheries, environment, marine life, or oceans. It is an issue that has come up on the east coast and in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence.

We know that the issue of the development of the Old Harry site is a controversial one. It is controversial for reasons like this. We must make sure that we have protections in place for the people who work on any particular drill site and that the environmental protections are in place before any company is allowed to proceed with any development.

In the Gulf, as we have heard in this House, if there is an oil spill, God forbid, it takes upward of a year for the Gulf of St. Lawrence to empty and the water to cycle around. It would be absolutely devastating to Quebec, New Brunswick, the Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and, of course, to the waters that flow into and out of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It is important that we pay attention to how we are moving forward and ensure that all of our laws are properly constructed to cover any potential problems that may exist.

This is a situation where laws are just now catching up with a disaster that happened 30 years ago, in which 84 people lost their lives. We have to be able to respond more quickly. We have to make sure we can look forward and learn from what is happening in other jurisdictions. Let us not wait until the worst case scenario actually presents itself, and let us bring legislation forward to prevent the kinds of disasters we have talked about, which happened in the past and are happening in other jurisdictions.

That is why we need to move forward and work closely with the provinces, in this case Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. On another offshore related issue, the Province of Nova Scotia has extended a moratorium against oil and natural gas development in Georges Bank. That area was determined to be extraordinarily vulnerable, a very sensitive ecosystem, very much a nursery for the fishery throughout the east coast. It has been determined in the past by both the federal and provincial governments working together that we needed to prevent any industrial development in that area of the ocean.

As well, the Province of Nova Scotia has passed legislation to make sure that will not happen, but the federal government, this time, has failed to work with the Province of Nova Scotia. We will continue to push the government on that question. The moratorium must be extended to protect the industry that now exists, the fishery, to protect the ecosystem, to protect our oceans and to protect our environment throughout the east coast.

Again, that is another part of the legislative framework that needs to be put in place to ensure that, as developments continue to move forward, we have the protections in place to ensure that damage is not done to what already exists and what might exist well into the future.

Both BP and Shell Oil are set to conduct new deepwater oil exploration off Nova Scotia for the first time since 2005. We believe that our workers deserve nothing less than to feel safe not only in their workplaces but, in the case of the offshore industry, in transit to the workplace as well.

I hope the government will continue to work with the provinces involved to make sure that offshore safety regulations are strengthened and that we can avoid offshore tragedies like Cougar flight 91, the BP spill in the Gulf, and the Ocean Ranger disaster.

It was a pleasure to participate in this debate. I look forward to any questions.

[Gordon Griffith, Director, Education, Engineers Canada]

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today.

My name is Gordon Griffith and I am the director of education with Engineers Canada.

Engineers Canada is the national body that represents the 12 provincial and territorial regulators of the engineering profession.

These regulators are responsible for licensing over 260,000 engineers in all fields across Canada.

The regulators help keep Canadians safe by making sure that licensed engineers are held to the highest standards of engineering education, professional qualifications, and professional practice. I will focus my remarks on clauses 290 to 293 of Bill C-4 regarding changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with respect to the proposed expression of interest system.

More than 20% of professional engineers in Canada have been trained internationally. Our constituent associations process about 5,500 applications annually from immigrants. This is among the highest number for regulated professions. Obviously the question of how to efficiently assess and license engineers educated overseas has been top of mind for our members. As a result, the engineering profession has shown leadership in foreign credential recognition and continues to innovate in the areas of assessing credentials and undertaking the core activities required for licensing.

Alongside the interest of internationally educated engineers coming to Canada to practise, our sector, like so many others, is facing a looming skills shortage and a skills mismatch. A high number of retirements are expected in the period of 2011-2020. Some estimates indicate that approximately 95,000 engineers could fully or partially retire. Today, there are approximately 60,000 undergraduate students in accredited engineering programs across Canada. These graduates will somewhat help to address the shortage. Our 2012 labour market study reveals that in most jurisdictions there will be shortages of engineers with five to ten years of experience or specialized skills, while new graduates from engineering programs may have difficulty finding jobs. There will be an estimated 16,000 new engineering jobs. Recruiting into the profession will require focused attention by regulators, employers, academia, and governments.

The expression of interest system will, in our view, help bridge the gap for those employers looking for experienced engineers with specialized skills. The one concern we have with the expression of interest system is protecting the ability of regulated professions to keep Canadians safe. The high standards for entry into the engineering profession are in place to protect the public interest. Engineering is integral to so much of what makes Canada a desirable place to live: safe and clean water, reliable infrastructure and transportation networks, and research and development in everything from biomechanics to environmental engineering. Our high standards should remain intact.

In order to help support the work the federal government is undertaking toward the expression of interest system, the engineering profession is looking at how best to assess international engineering graduates prior to their arrival in Canada. We want to do what we can to help individuals with the right qualifications to be as license-ready as they possibly can be before arriving. This includes leading the way toward best practices for engineering regulators; developing a competency-based assessment process for assessing work experience; and developing a Canadian framework for licensure, a dynamic model of regulation that will enhance their ability to regulate the practice of professional engineering to better serve and protect the public interest.

Engineers Canada believes there is value for the economy and value for the engineering profession in better engaging employers in the immigration process and in making sure that those with the skills needed most are moved through the immigration process efficiently. We have been pleased to be part of the consultations on foreign credential recognition, the federal skilled worker program, and the round tables held around the expression of interest system, and we look forward to continuing to lend our expertise. A modern responsive immigration system will better integrate immigrants into our economy and society.

By working with the federal government, we can avoid delays for candidates, for regulators, for the government, and for potential employers.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today. I will be happy to answer any questions.

[Sarah Anson-Cartwright, Director, Skills Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Hello. Thank you for this invitation to appear on behalf of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I am Sarah Anson-Cartwright, director of skills policy. I am pleased to provide the Canadian chamber's comments on the expression of interest system, which is the subject matter of clauses 290-293 of Bill C-4.

The Canadian chamber supports these amendments and welcomes the new expression of interest, or EOI, system. We believe it will improve Canada's selection of skilled immigrants to meet our labour market needs, and it will improve immigrants' economic and employment opportunities in Canada. There will be both efficiencies and a competitive advantage to Canada by introducing an EOI system. The research is clear that immigrants who arrive in Canada with a job offer in hand fare better economically, and in terms of employment, than those who do not.

In a 2012 report for the Maytree Foundation, authors Naomi Alboim and Karen Cohl write:

There are clear advantages to involving employers up front especially if it results in a good job that matches the immigrant’s skills and expertise. An evaluation of the Federal Skilled Worker Program shows that those who arrived with validated offers of employment were the most successful immigrants within that program. Similarly, an evaluation of Provincial Nominee Programs shows that provincial nominees achieve positive and immediate economic advantages because most already have employment or employment offers.

By introducing an EOI system to programs in the economic stream, the advantage of employer nomination and other criteria for longer-term goals can be realized.

This year the Canadian Chamber passed a policy resolution on the EOI system. The resolution mentioned several key benefits to employers with the system, but it also recognizes the broader context for considering permanent residence by noting that “A demand-driven process will still require attention to other aspects of economic immigration”.

For example, the location of employment should still be combined with availability of settlement services for immigrants wherever possible. In addition, it's important that candidates are aware of the state of the local economy where they may work, including availability of housing and the cost of living relative to wages.

The resolution recommends:

That the federal government, working in concert with provincial and territorial governments, ensure that the new Expression of Interest system for immigration:

1. Be expedient, responsive, and efficient in identifying regional labour needs and in processing applications from both employers and potential workers to meet those needs.

2. Be open to third parties including, but not limited to, international recruitment firms, immigration lawyers and industry groups, which are acknowledged by the Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultants and/or provincial regulatory boards.

3. Encourage regional distribution based on skills and population needs.

The EOI system will apply to programs for permanent residency. The government will set the standards and the program criteria, not the employers. The government will be vigilant in preventing fraud in the system. There will be an opportunity for eligible employers to review candidates and to track the best prospects to Canada with job offers. These immigrants will help Canada meet its skills needs. These immigrants will benefit from better economic success by arriving with an employment offer.

Overall, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce believes the EOI system will be a valuable tool to Canada to be more efficient and effective in the competition for the foreign talent we need.

Thank you, and I welcome your comments or questions.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to my colleagues for inviting me here today to speak about two initiatives that are very important to my department. The first concerns citizenship, in particular passports, and the second concerns our immigration programs, of which we are all very proud.

I will make a few opening remarks about these two subjects. I am also open to answering your questions.

Before l begin, let me say what a pleasure it is to be in front of your committee for the first time. It contains so many friends and colleagues who I know are as committed as I am, and as we are in the department, to making a success of our citizenship and immigration programs. I look forward to all of the opportunities we'll have down the road to continue this discussion and deepen it.

The transformational change that we are undertaking, particularly in our immigration programs, is very much at the heart of what I have been invited to discuss with you today.

This is not just a side issue we're discussing today. It's something that goes to the heart of the reforms we have been bringing forward for several years now. We expect these reforms to culminate in a major watershed for Canada's immigration programs—the launch of the expression of interest, or EOI, system at the beginning of 2015.

Bill C-4 is the legislative expression of our commitment to foster prosperity and opportunity for Canadians. This is also true of the portions of the bill that pertain to the immigration system.

There is a direct link, and I think we see that link more and more clearly as the days pass between our economic success and the success of our immigration system, a system we want to be free of fraud, but also to be fast, fair, and flexible. We want to target the best and the brightest around the world, many of whom we know are interested in coming to Canada.

The rest of the world, fortunately, is enjoying recovery at one pace or another. Canada in many ways continues to lead the field, but we still have a genuine opportunity to build on our ingenuity, our immense natural wealth, our values and stability, and to use the immigration system to leverage that potential even more.

Let's be clear. The demographic pressures, the skills deficit we see in a number of areas, mean that we are relying on immigration now more than ever just to meet the current needs of the Canadian economy, never mind the future needs. There was a time when it was 20% or 30% of our labour market needs that we were meeting with our annual immigration. Now some studies are saying it's already 65% and perhaps climbing to 75%. In other words, the job, the skills deficit, the inability to find the right skilled people to fill jobs across the country, in almost every region of the country, would be even more acute if it weren't for our economic immigration.

Now let me give you a little context before commenting on EOI directly. We continue to tackle backlogs. We realize that eliminating backlogs—and that is our goal—is a prerequisite for full implementation of EOI. If we hadn't taken the actions we've taken with regard to the federal skilled worker program, and other categories, our backlogs would have grown to over 1.7 million this year and to 2.3 million in 2015.

Instead, and I know we've had exchanges on this question before, the backlogs are down to 600,000 this year, and are projected to go down to 400,000 in 2015 at the current pace. There may be other measures we can take to eliminate backlogs even faster, and I look forward to discussing some of them with you.

In the FSW, or federal skilled worker, program, if we had followed the old path—let's be honest: the pre-2006 path—the backlog would be 1 million with 10-year wait times in that program alone, growing to 2.5 million in 2015 with a 15-year wait time. Instead, the backlog is under 100,000 this year, with only a one-year wait time on average, and is estimated to go down to 10,000 in 2015. We're driving towards a just-in-time system. We're driving towards a transformation that will link our immigration programs much more closely to the changing needs of the Canadian economy and labour market.

That is why this new recruitment model, highlighted and carried forward in important ways in the current BIA bill, is so important. It will select immigrants based on the skills Canadian employers need. It's called expression of interest. The name is not exactly catchy, we agree. It has been inherited from other countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, which launched the thinking in this regard. I welcome the suggestions of the committee about how we relabel, reconsecrate, or rebrand this program in a way that expresses all the potential we see in it.

The intent of this system as a job market recruitment model is already clear, and its goal is vitally important. It's a new way of managing immigration applications that will create a pool of skilled workers to be matched with employers and fast-tracked through the system. Our goal is to have this system in place by New Year's Day 2015, just over a year from now.

The most important part of this is that only the top-ranking candidates in the pool, who are identified as possible candidates by provinces, territories, employers and the federal government, would receive invitations to apply for permanent residence. There are many people who will express their interest. However, only those who are needed by employers, territories, provinces, and the federal government will be invited to apply, and the resources made available to handle these applications will correspond to the number of invitations sent out each year.

Among the many benefits of this new system is that it's faster. We are aiming to see skilled newcomers arrive here in months rather than years.

It's more effective. As I said, we will invite only the most highly qualified candidates from the pool rather than simply those who apply first, and as the system becomes known, we expect the quality of people in the pool to go up. Not everyone around the world knows how the new point system for our federal skilled worker program works.

It is very competitive and very attractive, especially, I think, for English or French speakers around the world. EOI is going to help us publicize that opportunity to a larger audience than ever before. It's also going to be more responsive to the changing labour market needs of employers. Over time, they are likely to be more skilled applicants with valid job offers and a clearer shared understanding of how their credentials translate into a Canadian context.

Before my time runs out, I would like to make a few brief comments on Bill C-4 and the amendments related to the transfer in responsibility for Passport Canada to Citizenship and Immigration Canada. This transfer came into effect earlier this year, two weeks after I arrived at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

Among many benefits, this transfer makes the passport program more efficient and cost-effective. As you know, CIC is responsible for determining Canadian citizenship for all people subject to the Citizenship Act. Only Canadian citizens are eligible to apply for a Canadian passport, so integrating the passport program into Citizenship and Immigration Canada is a natural fit.

In fact, Chair, I would say that a Canadian passport is one of the most tangible and prominent symbols of Canadian citizenship. It's an internationally recognized symbol.

We have a new, secure, 10-year electronic passport—the e-passport—that has been more popular than any previous product, with a million of them issued in a question of months, which shows that Canadians are travelling, Canadians want secure documents, and Canadians want them for the longer term. It's also more cost-effective to buy a 10-year document.

So the measures contained in Bill C-4 are there to complete the transfer of the Passport Office to Citizenship and Immigration, to make sure that it is more responsive than ever to Canadians' needs, so that we can deliver passports by as many channels as possible—mail, Service Canada, passport offices, online applications. All of that success is reflected in the very strong statistics showing the growth in the demand for the Canadian passport, which I think in recent years has gone beyond anything we dared to expect 10 or 20 years ago.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am ready to answer questions from members of the committee.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I have one last question. Since Bill C-4 provides the answer that the government wants to hear, are they not politicizing the Supreme Court, which should be neutral, or at least surround itself with an appearance of neutrality?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Of course, Bill C-4 will be voted on in the House.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Good morning. My thanks to the witnesses for joining us today.

Professor Dodek, I am going to follow up on the questions that Ms. Boivin asked you.

Essentially, you are saying that the federal government is acting well within its rights, that it is not illegal to make declaratory provisions like those in clauses 471 and 472. Your opposition is rather to the form, to the fact that this is in Bill C-4. So you are not opposed to the substance, but just to the form, is that correct?

[Prof. Adam Dodek]

I do not believe that this amendment affects the amendment in Bill C-4. Clauses 471 and 472 change the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada, and therefore I don't believe that they implicate part V of the Constitution Act, 1982.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Professor Dodek, I am concerned by another aspect of the road we are on, and you spoke about it. It is the fact that there is a reference to the Supreme Court at exactly the same time asking exactly the same questions as those that the committee is studying at the moment in the context of clauses 471 and 472 of Bill C-4.

The gist of the reference clearly focuses on those two clauses and on the government's right to pass a bill that would establish the interpretation of the interpretive provisions. It would explain the facts of a situation that has existed since sections 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Act were written.

You mentioned that seeing a situation like that is a concern. Am I to understand that, while it may not be very appropriate, it is not illegal? Parliament could pas Bill C-4 including clauses 471 and 472, but it would be ill-advised to do so, because we could get our knuckles rapped. It may happen, but it may not. Perhaps the Supreme Court will decide that we have the right to do it. Is it just inappropriate, but not necessarily illegal? That is what I am trying to find out.