Bill C-59 (Historical)

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures

Part 1 implements income tax measures and related measures proposed or referenced in the April 21, 2015 budget. In particular, it
(a) reduces the required minimum amount that must be withdrawn annually from a registered retirement income fund, a variable benefit money purchase registered pension plan or a pooled registered pension plan;
(b) ensures that amounts received on account of the new critical injury benefit and the new family caregiver relief benefit under the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act are exempt from income tax;
(c) decreases the small business tax rate and makes consequential adjustments to the dividend gross-up factor and dividend tax credit;
(d) increases the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1 million for qualified farm and fishing properties;
(e) introduces the home accessibility tax credit;
(f) extends, for one year, the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors;
(g) extends, for five years, the tax deferral regime that applies to patronage dividends paid to members by an eligible agricultural cooperative in the form of eligible shares;
(h) extends until the end of 2018 the temporary measure that allows certain family members to open a registered disability savings plan for an adult individual who might not be able to enter into a contract;
(i) permits certain foreign charitable foundations to be registered as qualified donees;
(j) increases the annual contribution limit for tax-free savings accounts to $10,000;
(k) creates a new quarterly remitter category for certain small new employers; and
(l) provides an accelerated capital cost allowance for investment in machinery and equipment used in manufacturing and processing.
Part 2 implements various measures for families.
Division 1 of Part 2 implements the income tax measures announced on October 30, 2014. It amends the Income Tax Act to increase the maximum annual amounts deductible for child care expenses, to repeal the child tax credit and to introduce the family tax cut credit that is modified to include transferred education-related amounts in the calculation of that credit as announced in the April 21, 2015 budget.
Division 2 of Part 2 amends the Universal Child Care Benefit Act to, effective January 1, 2015, enhance the universal child care benefit by providing $160 per month for children under six years of age and by providing a new benefit of $60 per month for children six years of age or older but under 18 years of age.
It also amends the Children’s Special Allowances Act to, effective January 1, 2015, increase the special allowance supplement for children under six years of age from $100 to $160 per month and introduce a special allowance supplement in the amount of $60 per month for children six years of age or older but under 18 years of age.
Part 3 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 enacts the Federal Balanced Budget Act. That Act provides for certain measures that are to apply in the case of a projected or recorded deficit. It also provides for the appearance of the Minister of Finance before a House of Commons committee to explain the reasons for the deficit and present a plan for a return to balanced budgets.
Division 2 of Part 3 enacts the Prevention of Terrorist Travel Act in order to establish a mechanism to protect information in respect of judicial proceedings in relation to decisions made by the designated minister under the Canadian Passport Order to prevent the commission of a terrorism offence or for the purposes of the national security of Canada or a foreign country or state. It also makes a related amendment to the Canada Evidence Act.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Industrial Design Act, the Patent Act and the Trade-marks Act to, among other things, provide for extensions of time limits in unforeseen circumstances and provide the authority to make regulations respecting the correction of obvious errors. It also amends the Patent Act and the Trade-marks Act to protect communications between patent or trade-mark agents and their clients in the same way as communications that are subject to solicitor-client privilege.
Division 4 of Part 3 amends the Canada Labour Code to increase the maximum amount of compassionate care leave to 28 weeks and to extend to 52 weeks the period within which that leave may be taken. It also amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things, increase to 26 the maximum number of weeks of compassionate care benefits and to extend to 52 weeks the period within which those benefits may be paid.
Division 5 of Part 3 amends the Copyright Act to extend the term of copyright protection for a published sound recording and a performer’s performance fixed in a published sound recording from 50 years to 70 years after publication. However, the term is capped at 100 years after the first fixation of, respectively, the sound recording or the performer’s performance in a sound recording.
Division 6 of Part 3 amends the Export Development Act to add a development finance function to the current mandate of Export Development Canada (EDC), which will enable EDC to provide development financing and other forms of development support in a manner consistent with Canada’s international development priorities. The amendments also provide that the Minister for International Trade is to consult the Minister for International Development on matters related to EDC’s development finance function.
Division 7 of Part 3 amends the Canada Labour Code in order to, among other things, provide that Parts II and III of that Act apply to persons who are not employees but who perform for employers activities whose primary purpose is to enable those persons to acquire knowledge or experience, set out circumstances in which Part III of that Act does not apply to those persons and provide for regulations to be made to apply and adapt any provision of that Part to them.
Division 8 of Part 3 amends the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act to, among other things, provide that the Chief Actuary is not permitted to distinguish between members of either House of Parliament when fixing contribution rates under that Act.
Division 9 of Part 3 amends the National Energy Board Act to extend the maximum duration of licences for the exportation of natural gas that are issued under that Act.
Division 10 of Part 3 amends the Parliament of Canada Act to establish an office to be called the Parliamentary Protective Service, which is to be responsible for all matters with respect to physical security throughout the parliamentary precinct and Parliament Hill and is to be under the responsibility of the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons. The Division provides that the Speakers of the two Houses of Parliament and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must enter into an arrangement to have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police provide physical security services throughout that precinct and Parliament Hill. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 11 of Part 3 amends the definition “insured participant” in the Employment Insurance Act to extend eligibility for assistance under employment benefits under Part II of that Act, while providing that the definition as it reads before that Division comes into force may continue to apply for the purposes of an agreement with a government under section 63 of that Act that is entered into after that Division comes into force. It also contains transitional provisions and makes consequential amendments.
Division 12 of Part 3 amends the Canada Small Business Financing Act to modify the definition “small business” in order to increase the maximum amount of estimated gross annual revenue referred to in that definition. It also amends provisions of that Act that relate to eligibility criteria for borrowers for the purpose of financing the purchase or improvement of real property or immovables, in order to increase the maximum outstanding loan amount.
Division 13 of Part 3 amends the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act to extend the application of that Act to organizations set out in Schedule 4 in respect of personal information described in that Schedule.
Division 14 of Part 3 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to require the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada to disclose designated information to provincial securities regulators in certain circumstances.
Division 15 of Part 3 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to
(a) clarify and expand the application of certain provisions requiring the collection of biometric information so that those requirements apply not only to applications for a temporary resident visa, work permit or study permit but may also apply to other types of applications, claims and requests made under that Act that are specified in the regulations; and
(b) authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to administer that Act using electronic means, including by allowing the making of an automated decision and by requiring the making of an application, request or claim, the submitting of documents or the providing of information, using electronic means.
Division 16 of Part 3 amends the First Nations Fiscal Management Act to accelerate and streamline participation in the scheme established under that Act, reduce the regulatory burden on participating first nations and strengthen the confidence of capital markets and investors in respect of that scheme.
Division 17 of Part 3 amends the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act to
(a) add a purpose statement to that Act;
(b) improve the transition process of Canadian Forces members and veterans to civilian life by allowing the Minister of Veterans Affairs to make decisions in respect of applications made by those members for services, assistance and compensation under that Act before their release from the Canadian Forces and to provide members and veterans with information and guidance before and after their release;
(c) establish the retirement income security benefit to provide eligible veterans and survivors with a continued financial benefit after the age of 65 years;
(d) establish the critical injury benefit to provide eligible Canadian Forces members and veterans with lump-sum compensation for severe, sudden and traumatic injuries or acute diseases that are service related, regardless of whether they result in permanent disability; and
(e) establish the family caregiver relief benefit to provide eligible veterans who require a high level of ongoing care from an informal caregiver with an annual grant to recognize that caregiver’s support.
The Division also amends the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act as a consequence of the establishment of the critical injury benefit.
Division 18 of Part 3 amends the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act to, among other things, provide that the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act do not apply with respect to records and copies of records that are to be destroyed in accordance with the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act. The non-application of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act is retroactive to October 25, 2011, the day on which the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act was introduced into Parliament.
Division 19 of Part 3 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act to modernize, clarify and enhance the protection of prescribed supervisory information that relates to federally regulated financial institutions.
Division 20 of Part 3 authorizes the Treasury Board to establish and modify, despite the Public Service Labour Relations Act, terms and conditions of employment related to the sick leave of employees who are employed in the core public administration.
It also authorizes the Treasury Board to establish and modify, despite that Act, a short-term disability program, and it requires the Treasury Board to establish a committee to make joint recommendations regarding any modifications to that program.
Finally, it authorizes the Treasury Board to modify, despite that Act, the existing public service long-term disability programs in respect of the period during which employees are not entitled to receive benefits.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I appreciate that.

I want to move to Mr. Farrell now to balance the perspective. We've heard previous testimony how valuable internships are for young people.

Now, sir, you represent 400,000 people. You represent a lot of employers. For things to work, there has to be balance. What are the benefits for employers of these internship programs? I want to hear from you, sir, if I could, as to the protections that we have now built in to Bill C-59 for young people in internships, which I believe are important. Have they gone too far, or is it still reasonable for employers? I hope it is, but anyway I'd like to hear from you.

[Jonathan Champagne]

From where we stand, before Bill C-59, there haven't been a whole lot of protections in place for interns because has been no real definition or classification of interns, so it wasn't very clear what those protections were.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

And they're so important.

From your perspective, sir, what protections existed for the interns before Bill C-59, and what will exist after its passage?

[Suzanne Legault, Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Honourable members, I have been invited to discuss division 18 of Bill C-59, specifically clauses 230 and 231. This division amends the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, or the ELRA, to exclude the operation of the Access to Information Act retroactive to October 25, 2011, the date on which the ELRA was first introduced in Parliament.

To assist parliamentarians in understanding the impact of these provisions, I tabled a special report on May 14, entitled “Investigation into an access to information request for the long-gun registry”. I have also outlined the relevant facts in the timeline you have in front of you.

Given the limited time I have, I won't repeat these facts. I'll simply note that ELRA became law in April 2012. To this day, ELRA does not oust the application of the Access to Information Act. Pursuant to section 4 of the Access to Information Act, the act applies notwithstanding any other act of Parliament.

As you know, Mr. Chair, I have some very serious concerns with division 18 of Bill C-59.

First, division 18 will effectively make the Access To Information Act not applicable retroactive to October 25, 2011, even before the coming into force of ELRA. You must ask yourselves why?

Second, division 18 shields from the application of the Access To Information Act a broader scope of records than ELRA ever did. It covers not just the records in the long-gun registry, as ELRA does, but any records with respect to the destruction of those records. This probably means that no one will be able to request information about whether the RCMP has really deleted their own information from the registry or about how much the destruction of the registry cost Canadian taxpayers. Indeed, no one will be able to find out what transpired in relation to the destruction of the records at issue in my investigation. This is above and beyond what was ever considered by Parliament in 2012 in ELRA. You must ask yourselves why?

Third, if division 18 is adopted, it would nullify the request at issue in my investigation; nullify the complaint made to my office; nullify the entire investigation, including the production orders for documents—some 30,000 records—and examinations of witnesses under oath and the transcripts; nullify my recommendations to the Minister of Public Safety and my referral to the Attorney General of Canada; nullify my existing application to the Federal Court on behalf of the requester; nullify the possible police investigation by the OPP; nullify all potential administrative, civil, or criminal liability of any of the actors involved and essentially nullify the requester's rights in this case. You must ask yourselves why?

These proposed changes, Mr. Chair, would retroactively quash Canadians' rights of access and the government's obligations under the Access To Information Act, retroactively to a time where, in fact, ELRA did not exist. It will, effectively, Mr. Chair, erase history.

Mr. Chair, division 18, of Bill C-59 cannot be considered to be an attempt to close a loophole. It can only be an attempt to create a black hole.

Given the fundamental importance of the right of access to information and the rule of law in Canada, I would urge this committee to remove division 18 and clauses 230 and 231 from this bill.

With that, I would be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order.

This is meeting number 84 of the Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 25, 2015, we are continuing our study of Bill C-59, an Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures.

Colleagues, we're very pleased to have with us here this morning a number of guests. First of all, from the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations we have their executive director, Mr. Jonathan Champagne. From the Canadian Intern Association we have their president, Ms. Claire Seaborn. From Dewart Gleason LLP we have a partner, Mr. Tim Gleason. From the Federally Regulated Employers—Transportation and Communications we have the executive director, Mr. John Farrell. From Music Canada we have the president and CEO, Mr. Graham Henderson. And from the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada we have two guests, the information commissioner herself, Madame Suzanne Legault. Je vous souhaite la bienvenue au comité. And we have the general counsel, Madame Nancy Bélanger. Je vous souhaite également la bienvenue.

You will each have five minutes for your opening statement. Then we'll have questions from members.

We'll begin with Mr. Champagne, please.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to say how much I support the motion brought forward by my colleague. This Parliament is a very partisan and sometimes toxic place. What binds us should be our respect for the rule of law. Through the rule of law, through the work of Parliament itself, the independent officers of Parliament ensure that parliamentarians and the Government of Canada abide by the laws and respect constitutional requirements.

I'm very concerned about what has happened in this regard with Bill C-59. We have seen a steady undermining of the powers of the independent parliamentary officers who report to this committee. The Information Commissioner has spoken out time again about how her work is being undermined. She has said that the right to information of Canadians is being stonewalled and that the access to information system is now seriously broken. That has a direct impact on democratic accountability. If Canadians can't access information in a timely manner, which is a constitutional right, then there is no accountability.

The issue before us is an access to information request that was made to the RCMP. Members of the RCMP were aware of that access to information request, yet they destroyed all the data before the government had made it law to do so. This is problematic because one has to wonder who gave the order within the RCMP to destroy data that was subject to an access to information request. That is very, very troubling for an independent police force. The Office of the Information Commissioner looked into the issue and referred the issue to the Attorney General, concluding that it was possible that offenses occurred under subsection 67.1(1) of the Access to Information Act, for destroying these records. Yet, rather than deal with the seriousness of the allegations raised by the Information Commissioner, the government has stepped forward with a bill that will actually erase the record of an offence which has occurred.

Bill C-59 is an omnibus bill. What has been put in this omnibus bill is the ability of the government to erase and make legal what was illegal. In press release dated May 14, 2015 and titled, “Bill C-59 sets a perilous precedent against Canadians’ quasi-constitutional right to know,” the Information Commissioner states:

As Information Commissioner, it is incumbent upon me to inform Parliament of my findings in this matter because certain provisions of the Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1 (Bill C-59) will, if adopted, deny the right of access of the complainant, deny the complainant’s recourse in court and render null and void any potential liability against the Crown.

In an interview for CBC's Power and Politics, which aired on May 14th 2015, she went further to state that:

What these provisions do is they actually erase any potential administrative, civil or criminal liability for any actors involved throughout the investigation and in the destruction of those records in contravention to the Access to Information Act.

Either we have laws that we respect in this country or we don't. Laws in a democratic society do not depend on a whim or political calculation. For the government to say that it is okay just to rewrite the law to make something that was done illegally appear legal sets a precedent. I'm sure my colleagues understand that when they stand to vote on legislation they are creating legal precedents. Once a legal precedent is set, it can be used again. So the ability to go back and retroactively rewrite a law to say that a crime that had been committed could not longer considered a crime could be used in all manner of cases where a government is dealing with potential scandals and potential embarrassments. Certainly, on the issue of Duffy scandal, the Prime Minister's Office could have retroactively changed the law and residency requirements to make it appear that Mike Duffy was actually eligible to sit as a Prince Edward Island senator when everyone knew he wasn't. Once someone uses their majority to retroactively write laws and erase crimes that may have been committed, we are on a very dangerous path.

Without our deciding in advance the full merits of what happened, without understanding why the RCMP did what they did, it is incumbent upon our committee to bring it here, to ensure that due diligence is done, to get to the bottom of why those records were destroyed, what happened and who was involved, and to reassure Canadians that this is a nation that is still very much under the rule of law.

I would again quote what my colleague said. The Information Commissioner stated that every member of Parliament “is going to have to look themselves in the mirror and decide whether they can, in their own integrity, actually vote in favour of those proposed amendments”.

I think this would be something within the purview of our committee. It's something we should do. The Information Commissioner has asked our committee to do our job, and we'd be derelict if we ignored that request.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to move the following motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), the Committee undertake a study of the report of the Information Commissioner, entitled “Investigation into an access to information request for the Long-Gun Registry” referred to the Committee on May 14, 2015; that as part of the study the Committee request from the Department of Justice all of its documents relating to this case; that the Committee invite as part of the study the Information Commissioner of Canada, the Attorney General of Canada, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Minister of Finance, the Commissioner of the RCMP, the RCMP ATIP Coordinator, the Director of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, and the RCMP officers who destroyed the registry data; and that the Committee report its findings to the House.

Mr. Chair, what we saw in the House of Commons—Bill C-59—is without precedent. The objective of the bill is to retroactively amend the Access to Information Act, so that all data on the long gun registry would be exempt from the legislation. The Information Commissioner characterized it as a very dangerous precedent.

Mr. Chair, we have to respect a quasi-constitutional right—access to government information for Canadians. A complaint was submitted by a citizen because he could not access the data, as the RCMP had destroyed all of it knowing that a complaint had been submitted to the Information Commissioner of Canada. That is a serious problem.

In addition, a bill that has been introduced seeks to retroactively legitimate the RCMP's actions. That is a very dangerous precedent. Every time the government violates a piece of legislation or decides not to comply with it, the legislation could be amended retroactively. We would be living in a world with no responsibility whatsoever. It's very worrisome.

Mr. Chair, I want to take some time to speak about what we saw here at committee. These are just some of the things the Information Commissioner has said following the report that she brought forward. It's our duty to study this further because Canadians have the right to access, they have the right to know. That's their quasi-constitutional right and that right now is at risk.

I want to read one thing that she said to the media: “Each member of Parliament is going to have to look themselves in the mirror and decide whether they can, in their own integrity, actually vote in favour of those proposed amendments.” Of course, she's talking here about Bill C-59, because it sets a very worrisome precedent.

I ask all the members of this committee to read the report referred to us. We are not asking the committee go beyond its duties or its mandate, as the report was referred to the committee for consideration. We are really dealing with an exceptional situation. The Information Commissioner of Canada pointed out that a law has been violated. So it's very important for us to consider this.

That said, I will give you a moment to think about it. I hope we will vote in favour of the motion. That is what Canadians deserve, as their right of access to information is concerned.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

That's I was going to do. Unfortunately, Ms. James kind of jumped the gun and interrupted me.

The Department of Justice representatives who were here last week confirmed that Bill C-59 will not change the way the Speakers of the House and the Senate must act—in other words, following an order from Parliament, a vote. We have seen similar problems arise in the House in the past. The government, with its majority, prevented the Speaker from acting, although it had itself realized that parliamentary privilege had been breeched. I fully understand your concerns and share them, but I would like to move on to something else if I may.

[Ann Decter, Director, Advocacy and Public Policy, YWCA Canada]

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Ann Decter. I am the director of advocacy and public policy at YWCA Canada.

As the country's oldest and largest women's multi-service organization with member associations serving women and girls in nine provinces and two territories, YWCA Canada is pleased to share its remarks on part 2 of Bill C-59, which will implement the provisions of the budget tabled on April 21, 2015.

In our brief to this committee during pre-budget consultations, we recommended policies to support women, girls, and families, including a national child care system and increasing the national child benefit to reduce poverty. We specifically urged the federal government not to adopt income splitting in federal budget 2015 or at any time in the future as the benefits of this policy do not flow to vulnerable families. Our point of view has not changed.

According to the summary of Bill C-59, division 1 of part 2 implements income tax measures that introduce the government's family tax cut, known more commonly as income splitting.

Supporting women, girls, and families requires adopting policies that work for women, policies that are based on women's present-day lived realities, including high workforce participation rates. With a 65% employment rate of women with infants and toddlers—that would be a youngest child under three—and two-thirds of mothers with a youngest child in preschool or kindergarten, access to affordable quality child care would be a key support for families. Instead, it remains a social policy gap unaddressed by the federal government, and provincial governments struggle to offer a patchwork of responses across the country.

Families need child care, and child care needs federal government leadership.

According to a range of sources, the family tax cut as implemented by division 1 of part 2 will cost between $2 billion and $3 billion per year and will disproportionately benefit families with higher incomes. YWCA Canada would recommend withdrawal of this measure, maintaining the federal tax base, and using those tax dollars to increase the availability of affordable quality child care for Canada's families.

There are currently about 450,000 regulated child care spaces in Canada and 2.1 million children under six years of age. Increasing child care spaces will reach a greater number of families in need of support. It will support working mothers, who are the vast majority of mothers, and single mothers in particular.

Analysis of Quebec's low-cost, broad-based child care system has confirmed that child care is a social policy that strongly supports mothers, and single mothers in particular, to move out of poverty by dramatically increasing their access to employment. Between 1996, when low-cost child care was introduced in Quebec, and 2008, almost 70,000 additional mothers joined the workforce; employment rates for mothers with children under the age of six increased by 22%; the number of single mothers on social assistance dropped from 99,000 to 45,000; the after-tax median income of single mothers rose by 81%; and the relative poverty rates for single-parent families headed by women declined from more than a third to less than a quarter.

YWCA Canada would add that the mothers fleeing domestic violence with their children—who use our services across the country—can land on their feet in the community much more quickly when they can access affordable child care.

Division 2 of part 2 of Bill C-59 retroactively amends the Universal Child Care Benefit Act effective January 1, 2015, to increase the universal child care benefit to $160 per month for children under six and to create a new benefit of $60 per month for children from six to seventeen years of age, inclusive.

YWCA Canada's presentation to this committee during the pre-budget consultations recommended that the federal government streamline tax system supports for families into a single increased national child benefit with a maximum of $5,400 per year. Along with our partners, Campaign 2000, we recommended that the universal child care benefit be absorbed into the national child benefit. Bill C-59 does the opposite.

Nineteen per cent of families in Canada live in poverty. Campaign 2000's proposal focused this investment where it is most needed: on lower-income families. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 51% of universal child care benefits will flow to “families with no child care expenses and families with older children”.

On behalf of the women and children who turn to the YWCA for help and support on a daily basis, we would encourage the government to reverse their thinking, increase access to affordable, quality, regulated child care, and focus transfer payments on families in financial need.

Thank you.

[Aaron Wudrick, Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee.

My name is Aaron Wudrick, and I'm the federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to speak to part 2 of Bill C-59, the provisions of which the CTF is generally supportive.

CTF is a federally incorporated not-for-profit citizens group founded in 1990 and with over 84,000 supporters. We are dedicated to three key principles, those being lower taxes, less waste, and accountable government. Perhaps unsurprisingly we appear today largely pursuant to that first principle of lower taxes.

I did want to take a very brief moment to commend the government on balancing the budget this year. We at the CTF have been very critical of the many years of deficits, so we only feel that it's fair to also give credit where it's due and applaud the government for having the discipline to get back to balance. We do wish it had done so at a lower level of spending, but we're content to leave that debate for another day.

With respect to the measures in part 2 of Bill C-59, first is the increase in the child care expense deduction. We are strongly in favour of this measure. lndeed, we proposed an even greater increase in the deduction last fall. We also believe the government should consider modifying this deduction to allow a parent to pay a stay-at-home partner and claim that deduction in the same way.

With respect to income splitting, one of the CTF's guiding taxation principles is advocating for broad-based tax cuts. Our first preference is always cuts to the general tax rates so all Canadians who earn income can benefit. That being said, income splitting is not a terrible second best. What it adds in complexity—and as very diligent observers of the ever-expanding size of our tax code, I can assure you it is already very complex—it compensates for in equity.

We believe it is entirely reasonable to ensure the tax codes treat like as like, and a household that, for example, earns $80,000 a year should not pay vastly different amounts of tax depending on how that earning is divided up among spouses.

This government first introduced income splitting for seniors and has now done so for families. We would hope the next objective would be to introduce income splitting for everyone else in order to broaden the benefits of such a policy, including possible provision for single persons to split income with dependants in certain circumstances.

With respect to the universal child care benefit, it is again no secret we at the CTF prefer tax relief instead of entitlement programs. Taxing citizens and then returning the money with a bow-wrapped cheque courtesy of the Government of Canada is not our preferred model. Having said that, we are in agreement with the government that parental choice is paramount, and putting money back into the hands of parents to spend on the form of child care that works best for them is better than a policy of creating, as some have proposed, a large government-run day care system.

In summary, with the caveats we've already identified, we are generally supportive of the provisions contained in part 2 of Bill C-59. While we will never stop pointing out that complex boutique measures clutter up the tax code, raise administrative costs, and generally confuse Canadians when not necessary, the fact remains overall the federal tax burden faced by Canadians continues to go down, and we welcome that development.

Thank you. I'm happy to take any questions.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to thank Mr. Lapensée, Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Stock for joining us today to discuss division 10 of part 3 of Bill C-59.

I will start with you, Mr. Ferguson. In your remarks, you said that you have already recommended that the House of Commons administration and the Senate administration collaborate on establishing a unified security force.

Today, you have shared your main recommendations. However, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would also be added to an integrated force on Parliament Hill. The intent is for the RCMP to be put in charge of that unified security force, which would also include RCMP members. What do you think about that?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Is there anything specifically in terms of government policy or any changes in the regulations that you see as necessary, now that we know we went into this a bit overly optimistic. I think that is how we can categorize it. Now that we have seven or eight years of experience, is there anything that should be changed? I know we just brought in some amendments to financial management in the recent Bill C-59, the budget implementation act, because there were a few things seen along the way that could be tweaked to make that better.

Do you have any recommendations for the committee or the department that would allow the First Nations Market Housing Fund to overcome some of the obstacles?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Kurland, for joining us today.

First of all, thank you for your proposed amendment, but as you probably know, we cannot accept any amendments here in this committee about Bill C-59. We cannot make any substantive changes because the Conservatives refuse to split their omnibus legislation. All we can do is refer our comments to the finance committee. They will then study the amendment, if we suggest an amendment, even though they will never hear your testimony and the explanation behind that amendment. Of course, it is not the way to do things according to the opposition, but what can we do?

But, anyhow, thank you very much for being here and sharing those comments with us.

That said, I'd like to talk briefly about privacy protection.

You spoke about that. And you aren't the only one to voice concerns over privacy. The Privacy Commissioner had questions as well. And, according to him, those questions haven't been answered. It's important to discuss those issues clearly and publicly so people know what to expect. Logically, we should know exactly how people's personal information is going to be handled before approving a measure like this. What will happen to it? When and how will it be destroyed?

I'd like to quote Leslie Stalker, a lawyer and expert on the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Ms. Stalker had this to say:

The big issue is privacy...we don't know how widely the data collected by the government will be shared....

She also said this:

For example, it appears that under bilateral agreements, biometric data may be shared with other countries.

Many other experts have raised questions and concerns, including the Canadian Bar Association, Amnesty International and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. I mention them just so you know you aren't alone. Other experts around the country share your concerns. I would think that a responsible government would pay attention to those concerns and provide answers before going ahead with such a measure. But the government actually expects us to give it carte blanche despite the potential for the misuse of data.

Even though you can't propose your amendment to the committee, given that the Conservatives have chosen to proceed in a way that makes doing so impossible, I would still like you to read it for us. Since you were a bit rushed earlier, I'd like to give you the opportunity to round out the end of your presentation, which you only had time to summarize.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.

It's a very important question, obviously, as a result of the occurrence on October 22. Most of us were in the House at that time and certainly have memories of that incident and some of the activities that happened around that point in time.

I know we had our first meeting on Tuesday. So my first question would be to Mr. Lapensée. We had officials from the department talking about division 10 in Bill C-59. I believe it was pointed out quite clearly by the officials that, in fact, the person who would be in charge of this would actually report to both the Speakers of the House, and I just wanted to know if you were aware of those comments made by the officials.

[Michael Ferguson, Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to discuss part 3, division 10, of Bill C-59 pertaining to the Parliamentary Protective Service.

I am accompanied today by Gordon Stock, principal in the office.

In June 2012, we issued our audit to the administration of the House of Commons of Canada and the administration of the Senate of Canada. In these audits, we looked at the services each administration provided in areas such as financial management, human resources, information technology systems, and, of particular interest today, security.

Mr. Chair, I will summarize for the committee our relevant audit findings related to security; however, it is important to note that most of our audit work was completed in February 2012, so we cannot comment on actions taken since then.

First, we examined whether each administration had in place appropriate policies and controls designed to ensure a safe and secure environment for parliamentarians, staff and visitors. We also examined whether each administration had identified key risks and had implemented suitable mitigation strategies.

Overall we found that the House of Commons Security Services responded to security risks by implementing standard operating procedures and providing appropriate training to the responsible personnel, and that the administration of the Senate had mitigating controls for key security risks, such as having a memoranda of agreement with the House of Commons and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to provide armed assistance if needed.

However, to ensure clearly assigned responsibilities and accountabilities within each administration, we recommended that each administration develop an overall security policy along with appropriate objectives and performance measures. The House of Commons administration anticipated having its policy in place by 2015.

Second, we examined the procedures in place for communications and coordination among the three security partners—the House of Commons Security Services, the Senate Protective Service and the RCMP—given that responsibility for the security of the parliamentary precinct is under their shared jurisdiction.

Before our audit, the three security partners had worked together and developed a master security plan. After the plan was introduced, coordination and communications improved. However, at the time of our audits, gaps still existed, highlighting ongoing jurisdictional issues. For instance, at that time, no security force had accepted primary responsibility for the roofs of the buildings in the precinct.

In 2010 each administration had examined options for a unified security force for the parliamentary precinct. Each agreed on proposed changes to resolve the jurisdictional issues. The proposed changes involved integrating the three partner security services for the entire parliamentary precinct. To that effect, we recommended that the House of Commons administration and the Senate administration work toward a unified security force for the Parliamentary precinct. In our view, a single point of command and control accountable to both the House and the Senate would allow a more effective and efficient response. The portion of the bill before you today is a way of addressing the substance of our recommendation, and I hope that our audit findings will be of assistance to the committee in its current review.

Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening remarks. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee members may have.