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(a) reduces the required minimum amount that must be withdrawn annually from a registered retirement income fund, a variable benefit money purchase registered pension plan or a pooled registered pension plan;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.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Can you repeat the changes you are proposing for Bill C‑59 with a view to further enhancing and supporting the industry?

[Michael Wernick]

When I was the clerk, I contributed to three bills, C‑22, C‑59 and C‑76. The investments provided in the 2018 budget are among the priorities I advocated. This is the budget that made it possible to establish the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, the CCCS. It also provided for significant investments in the Communications Security Establishment, the CSE.

I worked on the elections protocol announced in January 2019. Interference was still a concern. And yet the government had tabled Bill C‑59 in June 2017.

[Sandra Hassan]

You're asking why at a certain point the Department of Finance decided to reverse the savings? If that is the question, the answer would be when the Liberal government committed to proposed legislation to repeal the Bill C-59.

[Kristel Henderson, Acting Director, Corporate Labour Relations, Correctional Service of Canada]

Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of the Correctional Service of Canada, CSC, regarding your study on Bill C-62.

My name is Kristel Henderson. I am Acting Director of Corporate Labour Relations at CSC. I am hopeful that I can provide the committee information on our workforce at CSC and our labour relations regime as it currently stands today, in order to provide some further context for your consideration of Bill C-62.

I will begin by providing an overview of the work that we do. CSC is responsible for administering sentences of two years or more in institutions of various security levels, and supervising offenders under conditional release.

On a typical day, CSC manages approximately 15,000 offenders within our 43 institutions across Canada, in addition to more than 8,500 offenders under supervision in the community.

As one of the largest departments in the public service, the Correctional Service of Canada employs approximately 18,000 staff members from across the country. Our organization's workforce includes correctional officers, parole officers, program delivery officers, health professionals, electricians, food services staff, and staff providing corporate and administrative functions at the local, regional, and national levels. Our employees work within institutions, parole offices, and administrative or headquarters areas in all 10 provinces and three territories. While some work mostly regular day jobs, others work shifts that entail long hours. Two occupational groups, for the most part exclusive to CSC, represent over half of all staff employed in operational units.

The correctional officer group, or CX group comprises 41.8% of staff while another 14.1% of staff are in the welfare programs, or WP category. This group includes parole and program officers who work in CSC institutions and in the community. The remainder of CSC's workforce reflects the variety of other skills required to operate institutions and community offices such as health professionals or corporate and administrative staff.

All staff work together to ensure that institutions operate in a secure and safe way and that offenders are effectively supervised on release, with specialized initiatives and approaches for indigenous offenders, offenders with mental health needs, and women offenders.

Our workforce and workplace directly impact the success of our operations and how we fulfil our mandate. Without a strong and professional workforce, and without a workplace conducive to its development and well-being, we would not be able to get these jobs done.

As this committee is aware, Bill C-62 would restore the public service labour relations regime that existed prior to the coming into force of certain budget implementation acts. These include those related to essential services in the resolution of collective bargaining disputes, along with the rights of bargaining agents to negotiate terms and conditions of employment related to sick leave and disability matters.

The provisions of the proposed bill support the return to the former negotiation approach to determining an organization's essential services profile. In that regard, CSC has always been committed to establishing a listing of essential positions, which promotes a profile that balances opportunities for active union involvement and manageable operational risk, and that is based on sustainable rationales.

Most positions located within our institutions and community offices continue to meet the definition of essential service in that they provide a service that is or will be at any time necessary for the safety or security of the public or a segment of the public. As a result, a re-examination of the proposed profile, where safety and security contributions can be managed through alternative approaches in the event of a strike, will be required to determine where we may be able to assume any additional degree of operational risk management. The amendments to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, as introduced by former Bill C-4, removed the choice of dispute resolution method for the core public administration and made conciliation the primary mechanism, except in cases where 80% or more of the positions in a bargaining unit are designated by the employer as essential.

Historically the dispute resolution method selected by bargaining agents active within CSC has been conciliation even when 100% of the positions within the bargaining unit have been deemed essential. It is expected that, should Bill C-62 come into force, bargaining agents would revert to their historical dispute resolution method. In addition, Bill C-62 also proposes to repeal a section of former Bill C-59, the implementing legislation of budget 2015.

Division 20 of part three of Bill C-59 authorized the Treasury Board to establish and modify terms and conditions of employment related to the sick leave and disability regime of employees, notwithstanding the provisions of the FPSLRA, but outside of the collective bargaining process. Those provisions came into force upon royal assent, although to date, they have not been implemented by the Treasury Board.

If enacted, Bill C-62 would allow consideration of the terms and conditions of employment related to the sick leave of CSC employees to be dealt with as part of the collective bargaining process.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I welcome your questions.

Thank you.

[Chris Aylward, National Executive Vice-President, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the committee members for providing the Public Service Alliance of Canada this opportunity to meet with you on Bill C-62.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada represents over 130,000 federal public sector workers.

We welcome this bill that finally restores some of the balance to collective bargaining in the federal public service that was lost by the passage of the previous government's two bills, Bill C-4 and Bill C-59. Division 20 of Bill C-59 took away the collective bargaining rights of our members and other federal public service workers. It gave the government the unilateral right to amend the sick leave provisions of our collective agreements at any time. We do not consider it free collective bargaining when the employer has the legal power to impose a predetermined outcome.

Bill C-62 will also restore rights taken away through the changes that were made by division 17 of Bill C-4 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act. These changes placed fundamental restrictions on our members' collective bargaining rights, such as those affecting designation of essential services.

The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that the right to collective bargaining is a protected right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 2007, it ruled that freedom of association includes the right to collectively bargain. That freedom is also guaranteed by the Canadian Bill of Rights. When governments restrict the ability of employees to engage in good-faith negotiations, an important term and condition of their employment, they violate that freedom of association. Bill C-59 denied the right of employees to good-faith bargaining by giving the employer the unilateral authority to establish all terms and conditions related to sick leave, including establishing a short-term disability program and modifying the existing long-term disability program. Bill C-4 gave the employer the authority to override many provisions of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, including the statutory freeze provisions that maintain the status quo while the parties are engaged in collective bargaining.

While we welcome the repeal of these sections, Bill C-62 will also contravene the charter. In January 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a ruling on the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour's challenge to the province's Public Service Essential Services Act. The court ruled that the right to strike is protected by subsection 2(d) of the charter. It held that the right to strike is an essential part of a meaningful collective bargaining process in the Canadian system of labour relations. That ruling directly affects wording of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act that would be restored by Bill C-62. The Saskatchewan Public Service Essential Services Act contained language that allowed the government to avoid using management or non-union staff to provide essential services during a strike. The Supreme Court ruled that this act was unconstitutional because it violated employees' section 2 charter rights.

The court decision included an observation about this language by the original trial judge. He said that it enabled “managers and non-union administrators to avoid the inconvenience and pressure that would ordinarily” occur due to “a work stoppage”. He also said that it shouldn't matter if the qualified personnel available to provide the necessary services are managers or administrators. If anything, the language works at cross-purposes to making sure essential services are delivered during a work stoppage.

Bill C-62 would permit identical language to remain in the Federal Public Service Labour Relations Act. To remedy this, we ask the committee to propose an amendment to remove, from clause 9, proposed paragraphs 121(2)(a), 123(6)(a), and 127(6)(a). All three read as follows, “without regard to the availability of other persons to provide the essential service during a strike”.

The amendment to remove these proposed paragraphs is consistent with the 2015 Supreme Court decision. When both Bill C-4 and Bill C-59 were passed, PSAC filed constitutional challenges. In 2015, we, and other federal bargaining agents, also filed a motion for an injunction that would prevent the government from using its powers under Bill C-59's division 20 until after the constitutional challenge was heard on its merits.

That motion was scheduled to be heard in the fall of 2015 and then was pushed to March of the next year, in order to give the new government an opportunity to revise the previous government's position and provide instructions to counsel. At this time, both court proceedings are adjourned, pending repeal of the offending provisions that were contained in division 17 of Bill C-4 and division 20 of Bill C-59.

In July 2016, an interim agreement was reached between PSAC and Treasury Board that included measures to address concerns regarding choice of dispute resolution mechanisms, rules governing public interest commissions and arbitration boards, and essential service designations, among others. However, that was a temporary measure and we will soon be entering another round of bargaining for our members in the federal public sector. Our constitutional challenges will not be withdrawn, until such time as these sections of Bill C-4 and Bill C-59 are repealed and our members' rights restored.

I ask the committee to propose the removal of the unconstitutional sections of Bill C-62 and to expedite its passage.

Ms. Devine and I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[Chris Roberts, National Director, Social and Economic Policy Department, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Good afternoon, committee members. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.

On behalf of the three million members of the Canadian Labour Congress, I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to present our views on Bill C-62. The CLC brings together Canada's national and international unions, along with the provincial and territorial federations of labour, and over 100 labour councils from coast to coast to coast. Employees represented by affiliated unions of the CLC work in virtually all sectors of the Canadian economy, in all occupations, in all regions of the country, including the federal public service.

The Canadian Labour Congress supports the enactment of Bill C-62, although with the important amendment that I think my colleagues from the alliance are going to raise in just a moment.

We believe that restoring vital aspects of the federal public service labour relations framework to the status quo prior to the enactment of Bill C-4 in 2013, and Bill C-59 in 2015, will provide for more fair, balanced, and constructive labour relations in the federal public service. Bill C-62 will also establish a labour relations framework that is more consistent with the rights of Canadians enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Government of Canada's obligations under international law.

Bill C-62 repeals many of the regressive changes to federal public service labour relations contained in divisions 17 and 18 of Bill C-4. Bill C-4 withdrew the ability of bargaining agents to select one of two methods of dispute resolution in the event of impasse: interest arbitration or conciliation/strike. The legislation imposed a default method of dispute resolution, conciliation/strike, without any compelling rationale or negotiation with federal unions.

At the same time, Bill C-4 gave the employer exclusive rights to determine what services are essential, and how many and which positions are required to deliver those services. The role of the bargaining agent was reduced to limited post hoc consultation, with no dispute resolution mechanism established to contest any of these designations.

The legislation also allowed the employer to require an employee, occupying a position designated as essential, to be available during off-duty hours to perform all duties assigned to that position. In other words, non-essential work would be performed during a strike.

Access to interest arbitration for bargaining units where the majority of workers were designated as essential was thus taken away. Arbitration would be available to the unions only where 80% or more of the positions of the bargaining unit had been designated by the government as essential.

The legislation also altered the factors to be considered by the arbitration board in making an arbitral award. From the original five factors to be considered by the board, Bill C-4 required the arbitration board to give preponderance to just two factors: one, the necessity of attracting competent persons to and retaining them in the public service in order to meet the needs of Canadians, and two, Canada's fiscal circumstances relative to its stated budgetary policies.

The second factor stifles a reasoned debate about the employer's fiscal circumstances and replaces it with the government's “desire to pay”, regardless of ability. In place of an evidence-based assessment of relevant economic factors and fiscal circumstances, the legislation effectively substituted the willingness of the government to compensate its employees at a certain level, and obliged arbitration boards to give preponderance to this factor and one other.

Finally, Bill C-59 granted the President of Treasury Board the ability to unilaterally impose a sickness and disability regime. Under Bill C-59, these fundamental terms and conditions of employment could be imposed rather than negotiated as they historically had been.

In conclusion, the CLC supports Bill C-62 with an important amendment that's about to be discussed, and the promotion of good-faith collective bargaining and respectful dialogue with public service employees. I want to emphasize that consulting and negotiating with public service bargaining agents, promoting mental health and providing support for workers, and investing in a workplace culture of fairness and respect pays off in high-quality services and lower costs to government and all Canadians.

A highly productive and motivated public service is one in which employees are supported, included, engaged, and recognized at work. Vilifying public service workers, undermining employee rights, and failing to invest in healthy workplaces represents a false economy, in my view. It leads to higher costs to government and Canadians in the form of low employee morale, a higher incidence and severity of depression and poor health, and lower levels of productivity, not to mention higher operational costs and elevated litigation risk to government.

Finally, the CLC believes that changes to labour laws must be conducted in a tripartite context, with ample study, consultation, and deliberation of the evidence, and an integral role for unions.

I want to close by echoing my colleagues' criticisms of PSECA and that egregious legislation, and also indicate the CLC support for repealing that legislation as soon as possible.

Thank you for your time, and I'd welcome any questions you have.

[Greg Phillips, President, Canadian Association of Professional Employees]

Honourable members of Parliament, we would like to thank the members of the committee for inviting us to appear, so that we are able to provide our opinion about Bill C-62.

My name is Greg Phillips, and I am President of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees, or CAPE. CAPE represents some 14,000 public service employees. The large majority of our members are economists and social science workers who advise the government on public policy. We also represent the translators and interpreters who work every day to preserve and promote our nation's linguistic duality. Last but not least, we also have the great honour of representing the 90 analysts and research assistants employed by the Library of Parliament.

Accompanying me here today is Peter Engelmann, a partner with the law firm of Goldblatt Partners, who has a great deal of experience in labour law and constitutional law, particularly in the context of the federal public sector.

I want to start by saying that CAPE is very pleased that the government is finally taking steps to repeal Bills C-4 and C-59, the blatantly anti-union legislation that was passed by the former government. While it has taken far too long for the government to make good on the promises that were made even before the 2015 election, CAPE looks forward to seeing this bill go through the legislative process as quickly as possible in order to help restore the balance in labour relations in the federal public sector.

As you are no doubt aware, under the guise of modernizing labour relations, the former Conservative government attacked the collective bargaining rights of federal public servants on a number of levels. Bill C-4 came first and was problematic in many respects. It provided the government with undue leverage in the collective bargaining system in everything from the negotiation of essential services agreements to public service recourse procedures.

However, from CAPE's perspective, the most egregious changes were to the dispute resolution process. In particular, Bill C-4 took away the rights of our bargaining agents to choose between the arbitration or conciliation/strike routes as a process for resolving collective bargaining disputes.

In CAPE's case, it took away the right to arbitration, a process that had always worked well for CAPE and its members, and pushed them into the conciliation/strike route. In addition, the government even compromised the arbitration and conciliation processes by imposing new factors that arbitrators and conciliators had to consider when making a recommendation or award.

Bill C-59 took matters a step further and permitted the government to fundamentally change the long-standing and hard-fought sick leave and disability programs of public servants. Most disturbingly, it gave the government power to do so unilaterally, bypassing the bargaining process altogether. CAPE, along with many other federal public sector unions, felt that this legislation denied its members their fundamental rights under section 2(d) of the charter in that it did not allow for meaningful collective bargaining with regard to these key workplace issues. Therefore, CAPE actively participated in a case before the Ontario courts, which challenged the constitutionality of that legislation. Following the important decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour case in 2015, CAPE is confident that this charter challenge would have been successful in overturning Bill C-59 and likewise Bill C-4.

Needless to say, these changes to the labour relations scheme by the former government led to a combative and unproductive labour relations environment in the federal public service. This has been problematic not just for the members of bargaining agents such as CAPE, but for everyone who works in the federal public service. As noted at the outset, CAPE believes that it has taken far too long for the government to take these straightforward steps to turn back the clock to the labour relations system that was in place before C-4 and C-59.

The lengthy delay of over two and a half years since the election has unnecessarily prolonged this adversarial environment. CAPE is also disappointed that the bill fails to address some of the problems that have plagued the federal public service labour relations regime since even before Bills C-4 and C-59, such as the lengthy delays in getting cases to adjudication. This would have been an excellent opportunity for the government to tackle this important access to justice issue.

On a more positive note, it appears that this bill undoes virtually all the difficulties created by Bills C-4 and C-59. CAPE looks forward to returning to a labour relations system that is not perfect but is much more balanced and fair.

CAPE also notes that while Bill C-62 is amending the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, it is only a housekeeping provision to restore the procedures applicable to arbitration and conciliation that existed before December 31, 2013.

CAPE is disappointed that the government is not seizing on this opportunity to fulfill its commitment to completely repeal PSECA and to move forward with a proactive pay equity scheme immediately.

PSECA is a regressive piece of legislation that is a major step backward from the concept of equal pay for work of equal value, and it significantly interferes with the rights of federal public-sector employees by denying them human rights procedures for systemic gender discrimination in pay. CAPE is concerned that this will be another instance where there are unacceptable delays, which will prejudice its members, and we call on the government to take concrete steps as soon as possible.

Thank you for listening.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Minister, I do not have a lot of time available.

Actually, you have increased taxes on the middle class. What I want to know is the increase in the number of public servants last year.

It is an important question. In 2015, the previous government’s Bill C-59 forecast savings of $900 million. Now, by giving out benefits, your bill has wiped out those savings. My question is important because, not only are we going to lose those savings of $900 million, but you are also hiring new public servants. Are we coming close to $1 billion in losses with the measures that you are proposing to us?

So my question is simple: how many new public servants were hired last year, please?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. I am very pleased to appear before your committee.

I'm pleased to be joined here today by Sandra Hassan, Drew Heavens, and Dennis Duggan from Treasury Board Secretariat.

Our government is committed to restoring fair and balanced public sector labour laws that respect the collective bargaining process, laws that recognize the important role unions play in protecting the rights of workers and helping grow the middle class.

I would like to talk to you today about how BillC-62 helps fulfills these commitments.

Bill C-62 combines Bill C-5 and C-34 that were introduced previously. Bill C-5, which was introduced by our government, dealt with public service sick leave, while Bill C-34 dealt with collective bargaining and essential services.

Combining these two bills into one, as we have, simply incorporates the adjustments necessary to combine the two sets of proposals into one piece of legislation moving forward. Broadly, the objectives of both are shared and related. Combining the bills makes sense. Both are amending the same act and both are related to restoring the balance to the public sector labour relations regime.

I'm going to begin with the changes to sick leave introduced as part of the Conservative omnibus legislation Budget Implementation Act 2015. Division 20 of the Economic Action Plan Act 2015, number one, known at the time as Bill C-59, provided the Treasury Board with the authority to establish and modify terms and conditions of employment related to sick leave of employees, impose a short-term disability plan outside of collective bargaining, and modify the long-term disability programs in the core public administration.

In short, the changes took the issue of sick leave off the negotiating table and gave the government the power to unilaterally impose a plan of its choosing. The bargaining agents for many of the public service unions rightly opposed this legislation, which was drafted without consultation with the public service. In June 2015, 12 of 15 federal unions joined together to file a legal challenge of these provisions, arguing against their constitutionality.

Bill C-62 will eliminate those powers and will show our respect for the collective bargaining process.

Our government knows that the unions play an important role, not only in protecting the rights of the workers, but also in strengthening the middle class.

Again, that is why we committed to not exercise the powers and to repeal the legislation.

I'd like to turn to the issues of essential services, collective bargaining, and dispute resolution. Bill C-62 would repeal the most contentious changes made in 2013 to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act. I'm referring to changes that would allow the employer to unilaterally designate essential services, remove bargaining agents' choice when it comes to the conflict resolution process, and impose new factors that arbitrators must consider when making a recommendation or an award.

It's worth recalling that several unions have gone as far as to file charter challenges against the provisions passed in 2013, and we have every reason to believe that these challenges would have succeeded in the courts, in large part because of the experience in Saskatchewan. Back in 2008, the Saskatchewan government introduced changes similar to those found in the omnibus bill that was passed in 2013. They were successfully challenged by the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour before the Supreme Court.

Let me outline the details of the key changes our government is proposing. First, the notice to bargain would be amended to return to a four-month notice period, although the parties may still meet earlier to bargain. Second, bargaining agents would be given the choice to determine which dispute process they wished to use should the parties reach an impasse in the bargaining. Third, when making awards or recommendations, public interest commissions and arbitration boards would have the flexibility to weigh the most important factors in the circumstances before them. They would no longer be forced to give undue weight to certain factors if the circumstances didn't justify it. Fourth, the employer would no longer have the unilateral right to arbitrarily determine which services are essential for the safety and security of the public and to designate the positions necessary to deliver those services. The employer would work with public sector bargaining agents to identify essential service positions and would enter into essential services agreements with them. So the determination would occur as a result of discussion with public sector unions. Finally, Bill C-62 repeals some of the changes made to recourse processes, even though these were never implemented, because they were to be brought into force at a later date.

Mr. Chair, and committee members, our government is committed to restoring a culture of respect for and within the public service, and to respecting the collective bargaining process. When we took office in 2015, all the collective bargaining agreements with public servants had in fact expired. Some of them had been expired for four years. We made it clear that we would work collaboratively with public servants and that we would negotiate in good faith. After two years of respectful negotiations, we have reached 23 of 27 agreements. That means, I believe, that more than 94% of unionized public servants for which Treasury Board is the employer now have collective bargaining agreements in place. It's worth noting that with most of the agreements, including an undertaking to develop an integrated approach to the management of employee wellness, our collaborative approach is achieving results. It's an approach that embodies the values of fairness and justice that make Canada the country it is today. We have a world-class public service in Canada, and one that is recognized as such in terms of its effectiveness and its professionalism

Bill C-62 affirms the values of treating our public service with respect and in partnership by understanding and responding to the need for fair and balanced labour laws in Canada.

I want to thank members of the committee for their attention. I look forward to your questions and to engaging with this committee.

Thank you very much.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-62, an act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other acts. I have heard some good feedback on this.

What struck me this morning were some of the statements made by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. He is a good friend. I really respect the person, but obviously, we have different ideas. He made statements about union bosses and union leaders and about the Liberals just saying “thank you” because some of the unions were putting money in and campaigning against the Conservatives in the last election. I want to say that I totally disagree with that. The unions were campaigning against the Conservatives, yes, but they were also supporting anyone who could beat the Conservatives, and that was because they have a very bad reputation for taking away gains from labour that people have fought for all their lives, and they wanted to make sure that those people never got back in power until they got their act together and started to respect what labour could do.

We are pleased that the government is finally moving forward to repeal legislation based purely on a backward ideology that forces public servants to go to work sick and that totally undermines the principle of collective bargaining. We have to ask what took the Liberals so long to bring this bill forward. What took them so long to act? Of course, this is a question many Canadians are asking more and more often about the current government. Why are the Liberals not keeping the promises they made during the election, and why are they so slow to act or are not acting at all?

The list of broken promises is far too long to list in the time I have today, but we all know about the Liberals' failure to support electoral reform, their failure to restore door-to-door postal delivery, and the failure to keep the promise to make government more transparent. We also know about their failure to support pay equity legislation, anti-scab legislation, and measures to increase retirement security. One of their most shameful failures is the unwillingness to protect workers' pensions.

We have heard over and over again expressions of sympathy from the Prime Minister and his Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development for Canadian workers, like those at Sears Canada who have lost severance and termination pay and health care and life insurance benefits. They now face reduced pension benefits.

Canadians need and expect more than their sympathy and their shallow talking points. They need action. They need the government to change Canada's inadequate bankruptcy and solvency laws. We have shown the Liberals how this can be achieved, but still the government fails to act or move to protect millions of vulnerable Canadians. As my friend from Timmins—James Bay is fond of asking, when is the government going to put the protection of Canadian pensions ahead of Bay Street profits? It is a very good question and a question millions of Canadians would like to know the answer to.

Let me come back to Bill C-62. New Democrats want to undo Harper's anti-labour legacy and build a fair framework for collective bargaining. We welcome the introduction of Bill C-62, which would formally put an end to measures introduced by the former government. We know that the government Bill C-5 and Bill C-34, both introduced last year, have been languishing on the Order Paper since their introduction. We hope that their being amalgamated into Bill C-62 means that the government is finally ready to move forward.

Bill C-62 would reverse the attacks by the former Conservative government on the collective bargaining rights of federal public service employees, and it should be passed without delay. This bill would repeal the power given to the government to remove sick leave from federal public service collective agreements so that it could be changed unilaterally, outside of the bargaining process. The bill would also restore some of the changes to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act affecting collective bargaining, which the Conservatives had included in one of their budget implementation bills in 2013, such as those affecting the designation of essential services. New Democrats rallied against the Conservatives' agenda to curtail public service workers' right to strike. The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act was amended in December 2013 to remove the choice of dispute resolution being available to essential services.

In our 2015 platform, we promised Canadians we would stand up for public sector workers in light of the lost decade of Harper's union abuse. Supporting this bill makes good on that promise. A respectful relationship with the public service starts with safeguards to free and fair collective bargaining, not stacking the deck in favour of the employer.

Bill C-62 is aimed at repealing two blatantly anti-labour pieces of legislation introduced by the former Harper government: division 20 of Bill C-59 and Bill C-4. The first of these sought to unilaterally impose an inferior disability and sick leave management system on public servants, which was an unwarranted and significant attack on the rights of public service workers.

Bill C-4 would have drastically changed the rules for collective bargaining within the public service, giving the government full control over union rights, such as the right to strike and the right to arbitration. The government would have also determined what positions would be considered essential.

A key provision in the collective agreements of public service workers is sick leave, which allows full-time workers 15 days per year of leave for use in case of illness or injury. The previous Conservative government was determined to unilaterally change this provision by reducing the number of sick days from 15 to 6, eliminating banked sick days, and imposing a short-term disability plan for federal public servants.

The previous government claimed this change would have saved $900 million, despite evidence to the contrary. According to the 2014 parliamentary budget officer's report, “the incremental cost of paid sick leave was not fiscally material and did not represent material costs for departments in the core public administration.” That means most employees who call in sick are not replaced, resulting in no incremental costs to departments.

Under the Conservative legislation, workers would have been forced to choose between going to work sick or losing pay for basic necessities. Its legislation would eliminate all accumulated sick leave for public servants, reduce the amount of annual sick leave to 37.5 hours per year, subject to the absolute discretion of the employer, and institute a seven-day waiting period without pay before people could access short-term disability benefits.

I want to comment that, because I come from a union background. I served the union for 36 years. We had that seven-day waiting period also, and we made great gains. We proved to the company that having a waiting period of seven days would bring in workers who were sick, causing other workers to be sick, which actually caused a downturn in production because there were not have enough workers on the job to produce the machinery. Therefore, doing that was a step backward.

Both the NDP and the Liberals committed to reversing the changes during the last election. Bill C-62 would repeal the offending legislation, thus restoring sick leave provisions to public servants for the time being.

Bill C-62 would also revoke some of the more offensive Conservative legislation, including: giving government, as the employer, the right to unilaterally define essential services instead of negotiating an essential services agreement with the bargaining agent; undermining the right to strike by making it illegal to strike if at least 80% of the positions in a bargaining unit provide essential services, as defined by the employer; removing the bargaining agent's right to choose arbitration as a means of resolving collective bargaining disputes, making conciliation the default process, and undermining the workers in cases where the employer consents to arbitration by requiring arbitrators to give priority to Canada's fiscal circumstances relative to its stated budgetary policies. It also removed discrimination-based complaints by public servants from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. That to me is a shame.

While we fully support Bill C-62, we also know there is more to be done to dismantle the Harper government's legacy of anti-labour legislation. Some of those measures include restoring the Canada Labour Code provisions pertaining to the rights of Canadians to refuse dangerous work. That was gutted by the Harper government, a right that everybody wants when they go into a workplace. Too many deaths have happened, and it should not be determined by the employer. The Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act should be reinstated, bringing forward pay equity legislation, as well as the federal minimum wage, bringing Bill C-7 back to the House of Commons, and respecting the right of RCMP members to associate and bargain collectively.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, perhaps I will stay along the lines of the question I asked the previous speaker from his party, and it is specifically with respect to the previous Conservative government's approach to shunning the ability of unions to properly represent themselves, or more specifically, how Bill C-59 sought to eliminate the ability to bank sick days in the work environment. To add insult to injury, that government went one step further by including that decreased liability in its 2015 budget. Before the bill had even been passed, the Conservatives were already banking on the savings.

Is that a fair way to treat employees? Is that a fair way to operate in good faith with unions and our public service?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's intervention today and, more specifically, his support of this piece of legislation because I agree with him that it is the right thing to do.

One of the really disconcerting parts of the previous legislation, Bill C-59 that was introduced by the previous Conservative government, was the fact that it stripped away the ability for federal employees to retain their sick days. Not only did it do that, but it then went ahead and took the liability that was associated with that and banked it against the 2015 budget before Bill C-59 had even passed.

I am wondering if the member opposite can comment as to whether he thinks that is a fair way to be treating employees, through a collective process where we seek to gain a mutual respect with employees and their unions.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in the House today and speak to Bill C-62, an act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other acts. This legislation and the subject matter with which it deals is not only important to me as a parliamentarian and a legislator, but also professionally. I was fortunate enough to spend 16 years working as director of legal resources for Teamsters Union Local 31, where I represented workers and the union in all facets of labour relations and human resources. I am well aware of the very strong need to have fair and balanced labour legislation in this country.

To that end, New Democrats are very pleased to see this legislation introduced and will be supporting the government as it moves the legislation through the House. As with all pieces of legislation from the Liberals, it is not exactly what we would like to see and it does not go quite far enough, but it definitely goes a large distance in re-establishing that balance in Canadian labour law that Canadians by a large majority want to see.

Specifically, Bill C-62 is aimed at repealing two blatantly anti-labour pieces of legislation that were introduced by the former Harper government. That was division 20 of Bill C-59 and Bill C-4. The first of these, the former Bill C-59, sought to unilaterally impose an inferior disability and sick leave management system on public servants, an unwarranted, unjustified, and significant attack on the rights of public sector workers to freely and collectively bargain their benefits. Bill C-4 would have drastically changed the rules for collective bargaining within the public service, giving the government full control over union rights such as the right to strike and the right to arbitration. The government would have also determined what positions would be considered essential, again, unilaterally.

The New Democrats fought vigorously against the government's attempt to introduce that legislation in the previous Parliament and we have fought vigorously in this Parliament to repeal the Conservatives' move to take those regressive steps.

To examine these provisions in a bit more detail, a key provision in the collective agreement of any worker, and in particular public service workers, is sick leave, which allows full-time workers, in the case of the public sector, 15 days per year of leave for use in case of illness or injury. The previous Conservative government was determined to unilaterally change that provision regardless of the wishes or desires of the majority of employees whose benefit it was, by reducing the number of sick days from 15 to six; eliminating entirely all accumulated banked sick days, in other words, wiping out accumulated benefits that public servants had accumulated for years; and imposing a short-term disability plan for federal public servants.

I pause here to say that many people in workplaces in Canada do have short-term disability plans. Others have accumulated sick days and each of those systems has its pros and cons. The point, however, is that in a unionized environment the way to come to a determination about what those benefits are is through collective bargaining. It is the employer and the union sitting at a table engaging in free collective bargaining and doing the inevitable trade-offs so that they come to a negotiated settlement. It is not by one side, in this case the employer, bringing down the unilateral hammer to impose its will on the other side regardless of the wishes or interests of the other side, but that is what the Conservatives did in the last Parliament.

The previous government also claimed that this change would save $900 million despite evidence to the contrary. According to the 2014 parliamentary budget officer:

...the incremental cost of paid sick leave was not fiscally material and did not represent material costs for departments in the [core public administration].

In practice, of course, the PBO found that most employees who call in sick are not replaced, resulting in no incremental cost to departments. The punitive reason given by the previous Conservative government, that it would save money, once examined by an independent officer of Parliament, was found to be completely unsubstantiated.

I am going to pause here and just say there is something else the previous Conservative government said would save about that same amount of money, and that was the introduction of the Phoenix pay system. The Conservative government laid off, I think it was approximately 800 or 900 payroll workers across this country in the federal civil service, and instead bought a computer program that was developed by an outside private contractor. It then concentrated a much smaller workforce in New Brunswick to handle payroll issues for the entire country.

At that time the Conservatives, with their ideological mantra of privatization and smaller government said we would save money. How did that work out? Here we are, three or four years later, and the federal public payroll system is in utter chaos. Hundreds of thousands of public servants have had errors in their pay, have not been paid at all, or have been overpaid. Any time a federal public servant changes their status, whether they move up a category to fill in for someone on a temporary basis or to take a promotion, their pay inevitably gets completely confused.

We now know that it will cost somewhere in the billions of dollars to repair this colossal, irresponsible undertaking. Conservatives always try to convince the Canadian public that they are best managers of the public purse. I hope Canadians remember this. Here are examples where the Conservatives made moves, punitively, to save money that ended up costing taxpayers billions of dollars and implementing decisions that actually made the situation worse.

I am going to pause here for a moment. I want to talk a little about unionization. My friends on the Liberal side of the House are standing up and strenuously advocating for the right to unionize. I heard my friends in the Conservative Party asking what stops anybody. In this country, what stops people from unionizing is the law.

It is currently the law in Canada that employees who work on Parliament Hill are prohibited from unionizing, by law. There are certain groups that have always been prohibited from being certified at labour boards, people like articling students in law firms, interns in hospitals, and other groups. However, on the Hill, successive Liberal and Conservative governments, for decades and decades, have made it impossible for MPs' own staff to unionize.

When Canadians watch this and see Liberal and Conservative MPs stand up and say that they believe in unionization and the right to free collective bargaining, one might ask why they do not believe in that right for their own employees.

The New Democrats, in contrast, have recognized this right by voluntarily recognizing a union to represent the employees of members of Parliament here, and have done for decades. We have signed successive collective agreements that give superior wages, superior benefits, superior job force protections, and safer workplaces, because New Democrats have voluntarily extended the benefits of unionization to our staff.

I say it is time for the Liberals and Conservatives to jump into the 21st century. I call on them to repeal that law that prohibits their own employees from applying to a labour relations board and being certified.

I also want to talk generally and philosophically about different approaches to our economy, and where workers and legislation like this may fit in. It has been my experience, and it is my assertion, that the best performing economies in the world have three features. They have strong, responsible governments, strong business communities, and strong labour movements. All three of those factors come into play and I believe are key foundational elements of not only strong economies but just societies.

One only has to think of countries like Norway, Sweden, Germany, or any of the European countries that, year after year, top all metrics and measures of happiness and prosperity. When we look at what the core features of those countries are, it is always those three features: a strong democratic government, strong business communities that are innovative, and strong labour movements whose rights are respected. That is why this legislation, which seeks to undo some of the most egregious anti-labour and anti-union initiatives of the previous Harper government, is so timely and overdue.

I want to talk a bit about what this legislation would do for essential services. I think everybody recognizes that there are some jobs in society that are just so essential to the safety of the public or the functioning of our society that we accept there are some limitations put on the right to strike. However, the mechanism of determining who those people are and in what numbers is left to negotiation between the parties and, ultimately, to an independent third-party arbitrator at a labour board if there is disagreement. What the Harper government did, and what this legislation seeks to change, is that it allowed the employer to unilaterally determine who is essential and in what numbers, again tilting the balance of the management-labour relationship completely in favour of the employer and upsetting years and years of established labour tradition and law in this country.

This legislation would also fix a problem where the previous legislation sought to undermine workers by limiting the opportunity for unions to refer differences and collective agreement disputes to arbitration for ultimate resolution. All in all, I am pleased to see this legislation come forward. I am pleased to see legislation that, once again, puts some respect back into the public service so that the federal government, of whatever stripe, Liberal, Conservative, New Democrat, Green, it does not matter, is compelled to treat the civil servants of this country in a manner that is fair and respectful.

Many features go into a democracy. It is not just about putting a piece of paper in a ballot box every four years. There needs to be an independent judiciary, a non-corrupt police force, a free and diverse media, an informed electorate, and a professional civil service. The civil servants of this country perform an invaluable service, not only to the people of this country and the taxpayers who pay their bills, in delivering the services that people need, but they play an integral role in upholding our democracy, because governments come and go but the civil service stays. It is its job to professionally serve the government of the day and faithfully administer and execute the policies that the government, which is democratically elected in our country, may choose. Therefore, treating those employees with the upmost respect, respecting them as workers, respecting their ability to engage in normative collective bargaining in this country, is a principle that must always be respected, and this legislation would do that.

I congratulate the government for bringing it forward and New Democrats will support it wholeheartedly.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's intervention, and there was little substance that had to do with the issue at hand. In fact, this morning, all we have been hearing about from the other side of the House is Phoenix. We know the reality of the situation is that the previous Conservative government fired 700 compensation advisers whose direct jobs were responsible for what Phoenix was overtaking. It is like leading me to the front door of a house that is burning behind me and saying that I can always go back in if I want, but that is literally impossible because we are too far down the road.

Let us talk about the actual legislation, because that is clearly what the other side is avoiding. Bill C-62 specifically seeks to make changes to Bill C-59, introduced by the previous government, which had to do with removing a federal employee's ability to bank sick days. To make matters even worse, before that bill was even passed, they put it into the budget for 2015 as a decreased liability.

I want to ask the member across the way if she thinks that is a responsible and fair way to be negotiating and working with our federal employees and their unions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I was a little disappointed with the Conservatives' response to the President of the Treasury Board. My colleague across the way laughs at that comment. I am sure she will take it seriously when I expand upon why I am disappointed.

When Stephen Harper was the prime minister, he sent a very negative message to Canada's labour unions. Whether it was through the front door with Bill C-59 or, and I know some will take objection to this, or through the back door by a couple of private members' bills, they all took swipes at unions and the union movement, underestimating the important and valuable contributions that public and private unions played in Canadian society.

If we want to grow our economy and our middle class, we have to be supportive of the fine work unions do. Today, the Conservative Party is using the old-style leadership of Stephen Harper. There does not seem to be any change. Some might think that is funny, but I do not think Canadians do. I think Canadians see no difference between the current leadership of the Conservative Party and that of Stephen Harper.

I would remind the House that it was Stephen Harper and his ideas that were defeated. When we look at Stephen Harper's policies with respect to labour relations and the continuation of what appears to be the Conservative policies today, I am not encouraged. I am disappointed that the Conservatives will vote against this legislation.

Let us remember what is at the core of the legislation. We are repealing some changes that were made through Bill C-59. Bill C-59 was highly offensive legislation that was brought in by Stephen Harper. We know that organized labour resisted it and saw it as offensive legislation, as did we when we were the third party in the House. In fact, labour organizations were taking the Government of Canada to court. After the legislation received royal assent, public unions were withdrawing from negotiations.

The Conservative Government of Canada did not even blink. It felt, for whatever reason, that it wanted to pick a fight with our public servants, at a great cost. Unions were pulling out of negotiations. Organized labour was taking the government to court, not only in Canada but to international labour courts.

When we came to office, we inherited that the type of labour relations. After the last federal election, 0% of federal employees were under an agreement with organized negotiating units. Today, after just two years of good faith negotiations, 90% of our federal workers who are under negotiating units now have collective agreements in place. It went from 0% to 90%. Tens of thousands of workers today finally have an agreement, compared to 0% in the Stephen Harper era when the Conservatives did not respect the importance of our civil servants.

I have heard others talk about Canada's civil service. I have the deepest amount of respect for the fine work it does. I have recognized that in the past, and at times it needs to be reinforced.

International public service agencies, in other words, public servants from around the world look at what Canada is doing and how we foster a very healthy public service. I have had the opportunity to meet with many individuals in other countries. They are envious of the professionalism of our civil service, how corruption is marginalized, how services are provided, and the relationship between politicians and civil servants. I really appreciate that relationship and the professional nature of it.

I am sure all MPs will acknowledge how much we depend on those civil servants to provide the many different services that are of utmost importance to all Canadians. When we talk about our civil service, or public service, sometimes it is good to put a face on it, the public servants we deal with on a day in, day out basis. Canadians need to understand and appreciate that they touch virtually every aspect of our lives.

We can talk about the Canada Revenue Agency. We often hear about the importance of dealing with tax fairness. The government has invested well over a half-billion dollars to look at ways to recuperate taxes from individuals and corporations trying to avoid paying them. Who are the people driving that tax recovery? In good part, they are our civil servants.

One of the branches that either I or my constituency office works with on a daily basis, Monday to Saturday, is the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. We have dealt with a a number of civil servants, who play an important role. Every year, hundreds and thousands of new residents come to Canada. That is no easy feat. This year, I believe we will receive in excess of 300,000 new landed immigrants. We have a civil service that can handle those types of numbers, and do it in a very professional manner.

We have social programs. I often talk about some of the fine work that has been done, whether it the work of the Minister of Finance, or the minister responsible for human resources or seniors, work such as increasing things like our guaranteed income supplement. We have the old age supplement, or OAS, program. These senior pension programs are all administered by civil servants. We have many other programs of a social nature. We have civil servants who are responsible for working with many other jurisdictions, provinces, and so forth to deliver the type of health care system Canadians want and deserve.

There is a change in government and through that we have seen real change with labour relations. I am very proud of that. I am very proud of the fact that we have an understanding that in order to grow our economy, a benefit for all citizens, we need to invest in our public service. Part of that is re-establishing a relationship of respect, which public servants can expect from this government. We value the immense work and contributions they make to the everyday quality of living for all Canadians.

I hope to expand on this if I get a question or two.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that my colleague is in support of this piece of legislation.

One of the things that Bill C-62 does, or attempts to undo, is with respect to a provision in Bill C-59 of the former government that actually went ahead and removed the ability to bank sick days from federal employees. To add insult to injury, the Conservatives also took the liberty of banking this savings through the decreased liability into the budget of 2015, before even passing Bill C-59.

The current Minister of Finance, upon being elected, immediately revised that by removing that provision to make certain that no such banking of lost liabilities in the budget would occur until there is a collective bargaining process that establishes that.

First, does the member agree with the position that the former government took on this by not respecting the collective bargaining process and immediately putting this into the budget before the bill had even passed? Second, does she agree with the position that the current Minister of Finance has taken with respect to removing those provisions?

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-62, which addresses a key issue for all those who believe in democracy.

The NDP has always defended workers’ rights and the rights of all Canadians in order to ensure that no one is left behind. That is why we believe it is important to continue playing an active role in this debate. Unions are the machinery that make democracy work. They took part in every struggle and are constantly coming up with innovative ideas. They have given workers a voice and a measure of power. I applaud their work and their unwavering dedication, and I want Canada to remain an egalitarian society.

Unfortunately, in the past decade, we have neglected our public servants, violated their rights, and subjected them to dramatic cutbacks and restrictive legislative measures. Today, thousands of employees are still not being paid properly because of Phoenix. Once again, as always, the NDP stood by Canada’s public servants and their unions throughout the process. The NDP would like to see public servants and the government enjoy a relationship based on responsibility, trust, and respect, today and in the future. That is why we are proposing concrete measures to reinstate a healthy working climate and a relationship of trust in the public service.

Among other things, we propose protecting whistle-blowers; granting powers to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada; adopting a code of conduct for departmental staff; and restricting the growing use of temporary employment agencies to the detriment of permanent employees.

We are as determined as ever to pursue these important goals. It is not a question of modifying a few policies here and there. We need a real change in attitude. The NDP will continue to demand that the government re-establish a free and fair collective bargaining process in the public service, and that it safeguard acquired protections and rights.

On October 17, 2016, the government introduced Bill C-62, which we are discussing today. Yes, I said 2016. The bill is more than welcome. It is aimed at re-establishing fair framework legislation for labour relations in the public service, and it is raising a lot of expectations. In December 2013, the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act was amended to eliminate the procedures for the choice of process of dispute resolution, including those involving essential services. The NDP vigorously opposed these amendments, which the Liberals are now looking at.

In our 2015 platform, we promised Canadians that we would defend the interests of public sector workers.

It is because of this promise, which we intend to keep, that we are supporting Bill C-62 today. The bill repeals various sections of the two profoundly anti-union legislative measures adopted by the former government, namely Bill C-59 and Bill C-4. The Harper government’s first legislative measure attacked by Bill C-62is the former Bill C-59, in particular section 20. The bill unilaterally imposed an inferior system for the management of disability and sick leave on public servants, which was an unjustified and major attack on the rights of public service workers.

That bill also abolished employees' right to good faith bargaining, taking sick leave out of federal public sector collective agreements so that the employer could unilaterally modify that leave outside the bargaining process.

One of the key provisions of current public sector collective agreements relates to sick leave. It gives full-time employees 15 days of leave per year to be used in case of accident or illness.

The Conservatives' Bill C-59 also took away accumulated unused sick leave days and imposed a short-term disability plan on public service employees. To make matters worse, the Conservatives introduced a seven-day unpaid waiting period before employees would receive their short-term disability benefits.

This is unacceptable. The previous government had the nerve to claim that these measures would save $900 million, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

According to a 2014 report by the parliamentary budget officer:

...the incremental cost of paid sick leave was not fiscally material and did not represent material costs for departments in the CPA.

The quotation speaks for itself. It means that most employees who are on sick leave are not replaced, resulting in no incremental cost to departments.

The parliamentary budget officer confirmed that public service employees use sick days at about the same rate as private sector employees. An average of 11.52 days were used in the public sector, compared to 11.3 in the private sector. A difference of 0.2 days is pretty minor.

Division 20 of part 3 of Bill C-59 also authorized the Treasury Board of Canada to nullify terms and conditions in existing collective agreements. It gave the employer the authority to override many provisions of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, including the statutory freeze provisions that maintain the status quo during the collective bargaining process.

Members may be surprised by what I am about to say. Under the provisions of Bill C-59, employees would be forced to choose between reporting for work even if they are sick and losing a percentage of the salary they need to survive.

Robyn Benson, the national president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, denounced these measures. According to PSAC, the sick leave plan for federal public servants is essential, and it must ensure that employees do not have to work when they are sick. That seems obvious to me, and I agree with PSAC.

I worked as a manager in various government and community organizations for 25 years. I managed a number of teams and a hundred or so employees. As a manager and as a member of Parliament, I believe that it is totally ineffective to make employees report for work when they are sick. It is even worse to cut employees’ sick days by more than half.

The second legislative measure of the Harper government addressed by Bill C-62 is former Bill C-4, in particular section 17, which radically changes the collective bargaining rules in the public service by giving the government full control over union rights, such as the right to strike and the right to arbitration. Bill C-4 takes away bargaining agents’ right to choose arbitration as a means of resolving collective bargaining disputes, making conciliation the default process. However, arbitration is a valid solution in situations where members want to avoid a strike, and the right to arbitration should therefore be maintained.

Section 17 of Bill C-4 also undermines the right to strike by making it illegal to strike if at least 80% of the positions in a bargaining unit provide essential services, as defined by the employer. Under Bill C-4, it is up to the government to designate which positions are essential, rather than working with the bargaining agent to negotiate an agreement on essential services.

This same section 17 infringed on workers rights in cases where the employer consents to arbitration by requiring adjudicators to give priority to Canada's financial situation in relation to its budgetary policies.

Discrimination complaints filed by public servants to the Canadian Human Rights Commission were simply erased. These measures are unacceptable.

That is why it is time to take action. This sets aside or amends changes that were made to four statutes during the last lost decade when the Conservative government violated union rights. I am referring to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the Public Service Employment Act.

The NDP always made a point of opposing the former Conservative government's attempts to limit union rights, mainly the public sector workers' right to strike.

We are therefore happy to support the government's efforts to undo the Conservative Party's damage and make Canada's public sector labour code equitable once more. The NDP is also happy to support Bill C-62.

We do not support it blindly, however. My job as an opposition MP is to scrutinize the bill and identify elements of it that need fixing. By expressing opposing views, sharing knowledge, and engaging in dialogue, we will come up with ideas to refine this bill and make sure it does everything it is supposed to, and it certainly needs help on that front. That is why I will now take a critical look at the bill's weaknesses.

After all the back and forth on this, Canada's workers deserve an ironclad law that will level the playing field for everyone involved and restore the balance of power. Although Bill C-62 is progress, it is just the first step toward instituting all the measures we want to see.

We should never legislate easy solutions to the problems we face. We have to avoid that. The NDP fought very hard to have the government abolish the previous government's initiative that attacked provisions governing public servants' sick leave. Bill C-62 can do that by repealing Division 20 of former Bill C-59 on sick leave.

Why is the government concurrently working on a new health regime that has short-term disability provisions similar to those proposed by the Conservatives in the past? That is the first reason why Bill C-62 does not allay all of our concerns.

Other points have me wondering. The greatest weakness of Bill C-62 is that it does not reverse all the negative changes made by the former government to our labour legislation. While this bill seeks to restore the rights C-62 stripped from public sector unions under Stephen Harper's tenure, Bill C-62 falls short of addressing some elements of Bills C-4 and C-59. I am referring to Division 5 of Part 3 of Bill C-4.

The Liberal government seems to be taking half-measures in an area where expectations are monumental. If we are to truly do away with the Harper government’s anti-labour legacy, Bill C-62 must do better, first by re-establishing the provisions of the Canada Labour Code respecting Canadians’ right to refuse dangerous work, such as changing the definition of “danger”, now limited in scope to situations of imminent threat.

We are also concerned about another point that Bill C-62 ignores: the removal of health and safety officers from the process of refusing dangerous work. As it stands now, the employer assesses the safety of the work, and the worker must appeal directly to the Minister of Labour. The minister can simply refuse to investigate if he or she deems that the matter is trivial or vexatious, or that the employee’s refusal is in bad faith. This measure implemented by the Harper government should be permanently struck down by Bill C-62.

Lastly, we believe that we should take this opportunity to re-establish a federal minimum wage and to reinstate the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act repealed by the Conservatives in 2013.

We also need to advance gender equality in the federal public service. That is why Bill C-62 should include a proactive federal legislative measure on pay equity in order to counter the effect of labour market forces on women’s wages.

The government claims that Bill C-62 demonstrates its commitment to fair collective bargaining for public servants. However, the exclusions to collective bargaining in Bill C-7 show that the Liberals have not always defended fair collective bargaining.

The government must commit to eliminating the exclusions in Bill C-7 in order to respect the right of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to meet and bargain collectively, just as public servants do.

That is why, in light of all the previous explanations, we deplore Bill C-62's lack of ambition. This lack of ambition restricts the scope of a bill that deserves more than what the Liberals are proposing.

Our disappointment appears to be shared by the national president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. She recently called on the government to do more than simply introduce a bill to correct the Conservative bills aimed at restricting public servants’ bargaining rights.

It is imperative that we continue to work on this bill. We must go much further and take advantage of its full potential. I explained which measures should be retained, which measures need to be taken much further, and which measures should be eliminated. The Liberal government really needs to repeal all of the Conservative measures.

This morning, I heard the President of the Treasury Board mention some lofty principles. If the Liberals wish to follow these principles, they must repeal all of the anti-labour measures the Conservatives introduced. We must take advantage of this opportunity.

We know that this bill was introduced in the fall of 2016, which was quite some time ago. People have very high expectations. The federal public service is dedicated to serving Canadians. We just marked the second anniversary of the problems with the Phoenix pay system. We need to take Bill C-62 as far as we can in order to resolve these problems that we have been grappling with for far too long.

We have amendments to propose. I outlined the measures that we want to implement. I hope that we will all be able to work together so that, when Bill C-62 passes, we can all proudly say that we accomplished our mission and that we implemented proper working conditions for federal public servants, working conditions in which they can feel secure. I hope that we can allay the concerns related to the Phoenix pay system and that public servants will have working conditions that will allow them to do their jobs properly.

We know that front-line work is demanding. That is what everyday life is like in some departments. Those employees listen to Canadians who are in difficult situations and who come to them for help or to get the their file sorted out. We are therefore asking federal public servants to do very demanding work.

Here, we pass bills. The next step is to implement them. We need to make sure that public servants feel that we parliamentarians here in the House are collaborating to provide them with the working conditions they need to do their job properly.

Budgetary considerations have been mentioned. All elected officials, at all levels of government, always need to ensure their decisions stay within budget. As I explained, a number of measures cost nothing. As we know, employees who are off sick are not even replaced, so their sick leave does not cost us anything.

For this reason, we are eager to collaborate in perfecting and completing this bill, which will officially reverse the anti-union measures of the past.

Bills C-5 and C-34 have been languishing on the Order Paper since they were tabled by this government. We hope that merging them with Bill C-62 is a sign that the government is finally ready to move forward.

That is why I want to make an appeal, an appeal to set partisanship aside and implement an infallible law that genuinely protects the rights of all workers, an appeal for teamwork and collaboration to make sure the proposed amendments I have presented here can be considered and approved.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

moved that Bill C-62, an act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-62. The bill would restore fair public service labour laws that respect the collective bargaining process. It recognizes the important role of unions in protecting the rights of workers and in helping grow Canada's middle class.

Bill C-62 affirms the Canadian values of fairness and justice. It combines the government's previous bills C-5 and C-34. It makes no substantive changes to the earlier bills; it simply incorporates the adjustments necessary to combine proposals regarding sick leave, collective bargaining, and essential services for the federal public service into one piece of legislation. Merging these two bills into one is an efficient way to restore the equity and balance in our public service labour relations regime that existed before the legislative changes were introduced by the Harper Conservatives in 2013.

In part, Bill C-62 would repeal contentious sections of Bill C-59, which was a piece of legislation introduced, without consultation, through an omnibus budget bill by the previous government. Bill C-59 had given the government the authority to essentially ignore the public service labour relations act of the day and unilaterally modify the labour relations law that applies to and protects public servants. It would have allowed the government to unilaterally impose a new sick leave regime on public servants without negotiation or consultation.

On taking office, our government committed to not exercise the powers given to the government in Bill C-59, and now we are following through on our commitment by repealing the legislation itself.

Public servants and their representatives have made their position on the law very clear. They are upset and believe that the law violates their right to participate in a meaningful collective bargaining process.

We agree with the public service that this law brought in changes that were neither fair nor balanced. That is why we are acting to repeal them. Bill C-62 also repeals the most contentious changes made to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act in 2013. These include changes that allowed the employer to designate essential services unilaterally, to make conciliation with the right to strike the default process for resolving conflicts, and to impose new factors that arbitrators must consider when making a recommendation or award.

The amendments immediately created an antagonistic labour relations regime and made employer-bargaining agent relations worse. A number of unions even brought charter challenges related to these provisions. We have every reason to believe that such challenges would have been allowed by the courts.

In fact, in 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Saskatchewan's essential services legislation, which included very similar provisions to the 2013 federal legislation. However, the decision to repeal these regressive pieces of Conservative legislation is not just the legal thing to do. It is the right thing to do. We studied the situation closely. We met with public servants and the organizations who represent them. We recognized that the current situation was unsustainable and indefensible, both legally and morally. As a result, Bill C-62 reverses the changes to the act that gave the government the exclusive right to unilaterally determine which services are essential. Rather, the government will work with public sector bargaining agents to both identify and agree on essential service positions.

In addition, under the new legislation, bargaining agents will have the choice once again to determine which dispute resolution process they wish to use in the event of an impasse in bargaining. They will be able to select either arbitration or conciliation with the right to strike.

As well, public interest commissions and arbitration boards will be able to determine for themselves how much weight to give the many factors that come into play when making their decisions, factors like compensation that influence the terms and conditions of today's modern workforce.

This is how the system worked before the amendments of 2013. I look forward to getting back to a collaborative and fair approach once Bill C-62 receives royal assent.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will enable the government to keep an important promise it made to public service employees, their unions, and Canadians.

That was our promise to negotiate in good faith with bargaining agents to reach fair agreements that are fair and reasonable for federal employees and for Canadian taxpayers. The facts are clear in terms of the previous government's lack of commitment to bargaining in good faith.

When our government took office in 2015, all the collective bargaining agreements with public servants had expired. In fact, there were 27 collective bargaining agreements with 15 bargaining units. They had all expired under the previous government. Some of them had expired for almost four years. No public servants had collective bargaining agreements when we formed office. We made it clear that we would work with public servants. We would negotiate in good faith. After two years of hard work and good faith negotiations, we have achieved deals that now represent 91% of public servants. Thus, 91% of public servants now have collective bargaining agreements that were negotiated in good faith.

That success in concluding collective agreements was one achieved in partnership. From the public service we worked closely with people like Robyn Benson from PSAC and Debi Daviau from PIPSC. We worked together, not just on areas of economic increase but on other areas where we can improve the quality of the lives of public servants, and work with them to improve the outcomes for the Canadian public, the people we all serve, those of us on the elected level and the public service, the professional public service we have in Canada, which is one of the most effective anywhere in the world.

This act today, Bill C-62, continues our work toward restoring balanced labour laws that recognize the important role of our public service and the unions that represent them. In this system, the employer-employee relationship is more equal, with both parties within our approach having crucial roles in ensuring workers receive decent pay, are treated fairly, and work in safe, healthy work environments.

Restoring a culture of respect for and within the public service has been and is a priority of our government, a culture that encourages federal employees and the government to work together to fulfill our commitments to Canadians. Ultimately, we are all working together to improve the lives of citizens. The bottom line is that Bill C-62 will undo the measures that stacked the deck in favour of the employer and against the public servants and the bargaining agents representing them. It also highlights our ongoing commitment to support the Public Service of Canada.

As a society we must never roll back fundamental labour rights that unions have worked very hard to secure. Rather, we need to always ensure that workers can organize freely, bargain collectively in good faith, and work in safe environments.

Members may remember how in January 2016 the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour introduced legislation, Bill C-4, to repeal two other unfair labour law bills from the previous government, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, and how we voted to support that legislation in the autumn of 2016. Those two bills by the former government introduced a number of contentious measures related to the financial disclosure process of unions and their certification.

Bill C-4, which received royal assent, reversed those provisions that would have made it harder for unions to be certified and easier for them to be decertified. It also amended the Income Tax Act to remove the onerous and redundant requirement that labour organizations and labour trusts provide specific information annually to the Minister of National Revenue. This included information on the non-labour activities, which would then have been made available to the public. We already had laws in place prior to that, which ensured unions are, in fact, financially transparent and accountable to members.

What is more, the contentious measures this legislation introduced were not formulated in accordance with the principles of respectful consultation. This includes, in terms of consultation, the traditional tripartite consultation process among the employer, unions, and governments normally used whenever we consider reforming labour relations. Therefore, the laws introduced by the previous government were deeply flawed and we, quite rightly, moved to repeal them.

My point is that the bill we are considering today is only the latest in a series of actions that demonstrate the government's commitment to bargaining in good faith with labour leaders and public service bargaining agents. This is of tremendous importance, not only to the welfare of our public service employees but to Canadian citizens, whom we all work to serve. Labour unions play an important role in protecting the rights of workers and in growing the middle class. We respect them and the people they represent.

It is public service employees who administer Canada's income support programs, such as the old age security benefit, for instance, that provides seniors with an important source of income. They are the RCMP and the public servants who helped thousands of asylum seekers who came to Canada earlier this year, as an example. They are the people who help fellow citizens displaced by wildfires. They are the public servants who serve Canadians day in, day out, and they come from all walks of life. They offer an incredible range of expertise and experience that the government draws on to ensure the delivery of services to people across Canada, and, in fact, around the globe.

We need our public service employees to be respected for the great work they do. More than that, we also want young people graduating from our colleges and universities to see the public service as not just a great place to build a career but a great place to build a country. I often speak to young people who are interested in entering the public service. Some of them, for instance, are involved in modern digital work and what I explain to them when they are looking at their options is that we cannot give them the stock options that they may receive with a tech start-up, but we can give them something bigger and that is an opportunity to paint on a larger canvas and improve the lives of Canadians. I would encourage all young people to consider spending at least part of their lives in public service, either within the professional public service or at the political level. The opportunity to improve the lives of our fellow citizens is a rare and important one.

To do that, we need to make some fundamental changes to the public service. We need the public service to be less hierarchical. We need to make it easier for people with ideas and ambition to come into the public service to make a difference, and potentially go back out after tackling some specific projects. There is a lot of work we need to do, but I continue to believe that the public service, either at the professional level within the Public Service of Canada or at the political level, remains one of the best ways one can actually improve the lives of our fellow citizens.

Throughout our history, our public service unions and, broadly, our labour unions have been a force of positive change. They have fought to secure the benefits that Canadian workers now take for granted, whether it is a minimum wage or a five-day workweek, parental leave or health and safety regulations. When labour relations are balanced and fair, Canadian workers benefit, but the country does as a whole as well. In fact, the economy does as a whole.

Unions and employers must be on an equal footing when it comes to negotiating wages and other important issues and benefits that come up in the modern workplace. In the federal public sector, federal employees won the right to collective bargaining in 1967. At the time, Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson said in Parliament that this right is “rooted in the concept of equity and equality between the government as employer and organizations representing its employees”.

We are continuing to fight for this right today. The bill being considered today is strong proof of that principle and reflects that. It is strong proof of our commitment to restore a culture of respect for and within the public service. It is proof of the faith we have in Canadians and the positive and uniting values that hold our country together.

I am proud of the work we are doing as a government, and much of the work we are doing as a Parliament in the discussion of these issues, and also of the restoration of positive working relations with the labour unions, the labour movement, and the federal public service. I want to thank all hon. members of the House who have supported and continue to support our efforts to restore fairer public service labour laws.

As parliamentarians, our shared challenge is to continue to work in the spirit of respect and engagement. All of us can do this by supporting Bill C-62. It would go a long way toward recognizing the important role of our federal public service and the unions, the bargaining agents who represent them and protect their rights. It is the right way to show our support for our professional and exceptional public service employees and to recognize the important work they do every day on behalf of all of us in improving the lives of our citizens.

National Security Act, 2017

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that Bill C-59 is spotty in addressing some issues that were found in Bill C-51 extremely well. Here I refer to part 3 at the time and its “thought chill” provisions, including the bizarre notion of terrorism in general on the Internet being an offence that could land someone in jail if that person could not understand what it is. This bill fails quite seriously.

On the information section, Professor Craig Forcese has made the point that we need to know that any legislation in Canada will not allow information about Canadian citizens to be shared with foreign governments in a way that imperils their safety. A lot of the bill appears to come from the decisions on the Maher Arar inquiry and on the Air India inquiry.

Regarding my hon. colleague's reference to torture, my disappointment is that no one seems to have focused on part 5 of Bill C-51, which amended the immigration act. Professor Donald Galloway of the University of Victoria was the only one to fully understand that section and to ask what Bill C-52, part 5, was trying to do in amending the immigration act. The conclusion was that it aimed to give information to judges for security certificates without having to inform them that the information was obtained by torture. I wonder if the member for Victoria has any insights as to where that section has gone, because no one is fixing it in Bill C-59.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for coming.

I'm going to also start with No Fly List Kids. A lot of the questions have been answered, and I also agree with Mr. Boulerice's comments. But I am somewhat glad you're here in the sense that if funding is an issue, then it's important for this committee to know as part of our pre-budget deliberations, because if we don't know and we don't hear it, frankly, then we can't actually make a recommendation. So I am glad you're here, despite the fact that it sounds like an awful situation to be in, and I am sorry that has happened.

In response to my colleague Mr. Fergus's question about Bill C-59, my understanding is that if the request to come off the list is made and the minister doesn't respond, then they can default off. I think, Mr. Ahmed, you said something to the effect that the name would be on the list and you are just told that it is not on the list. I'm sorry if I misheard, but could you explain why you think that the change in Bill C-59 in terms of the minister's non-response would be a default removal and why that wouldn't actually change anything?

[Khadija Cajee]

Okay. As far as our understanding goes, the office exists basically in name only. I don't know if it's even staffed, to be honest with you. We have applied. They have some sort of application process online that we have applied to, but the response is always basically the same as the response from before the office was announced. It hasn't changed anything in terms of our experience or the fact that the children are still on the list or any of that. That all still remains the same. There is still no mechanism to get the children off the list.

The only thing that's changed with the incoming Bill C-59 is that now the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is actually sort of legally allowed to say that, yes, your child is on the list, whereas, previously, he wasn't allowed to say that.

That's our understanding, but nothing substantial has changed.

[Sulemaan Ahmed]

We were advised that we would be told if our child was on the list or not through Bill C-59, but it does not mean that they will be removed. Therefore, it does not tell us anything that we don't know already.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you for that.

My understanding is that with Bill C-59, there is a system for recourse. I just want to make sure that if an application is made, the minister can then respond to that application when a person is placed on a no-fly list, specifically children.

[Sulemaan Ahmed, No Fly List Kids]

We thank you for the opportunity to be here today, Mr. Sorbara. I would like to thank a few members of the committee including the Honourable Wayne Easter, Kamal Khera, yourself, and others who have already written letters of support. As of today, we have 168 MPs in the House of Commons from all political parties—the Greens, the NDP, the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois, and the Liberals—who have supported this in writing

Our view is that Bill C-59 is legislation. What we require is funding immediately, and we require it for a technical solution. The United States has had the solution for a decade. As a nation, we do not need to wait another two years for funding or legislation to pass in the House, then another two years for a budget, and yet another two years, because as David Herle, the senior adviser to Minister Goodale has told us, once the funding is provided, it will require two years at least to make a build. That's six years, sir.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for all your presentations today. This is the last panel of the two weeks of travel we've been doing.

I need to get right down to it with No Fly List Kids.

Sulemaan, we've had a number of conversations over the last few months. I appreciate you folks coming here, and I really wish you didn't have to come here. I usually like to meet my stakeholders, and I'm happy to see them, but I think that in this instance it's disappointing to have folks having to come to the finance committee to let us know what's going on, especially with regard to your eight-year-old son, Adam.

I do know from conversations that there are many of us in support of fixing the system. I also know that in Bill C-59, our national security legislation, there have been steps put in place to get us on that journey. This is a system that was created and has been a long time coming. It has created some issues.

How disruptive has this been to your family? I want you to know that there are many MPs and other people working to help fix the situation. I do believe that Bill C-59 is one step towards that.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Of course, we've always known this, but this year's public endorsement by the Top 100 Employers project was indeed a welcome one.

Another highlight: the opening of the Sir John A. Macdonald Building, or SJAM as we affectionately call it, and more recently, the Wellington Building, resulted in a decrease of $99,000 to our main estimates for this year. The amount represents previously approved and temporary funding that paid for non-recurring costs associated with the renovation and rehabilitation phases of these very successful and now completed projects.

I look forward to your questions concerning the main estimates for the House of Commons, but first let me quickly turn my attention to the main estimates for the Parliamentary Protective Service.

I'll begin by providing you with an overview of the PPS's main estimates request for 2017-18, which totals $68.2 million. This includes a voted budget component of $62.1 million and a $6.1 million statutory budget requirement for the employee benefits program. This 2017-18 main estimates request represents a $5.8-million increase from the PPS's 2016-17 main estimates submission.

In addition to PPS's permanent voted budget of $56.3 million, which was approved under the 2016-2017 Main Estimates and established as a result of Bill C-59, PPS is seeking an additional $5.8 million in permanent funding to support the ongoing implementation of security enhancements and to further stabilize the organizational structure.

Following the events of October 22, 2014, several reviews surrounding this incident were conducted, resulting in 161 recommendations on improving security on Parliament Hill. The PPS received funding approval in September 2016 to launch the PPS mobile response team initiative.

The implementation of this initiative will address a significant number of these 161 recommendations and enhance PPS's overall response capacity.

PPS is requesting permanent funding in the amount of of $1.2 million to further implement and sustain the needs of this initiative.

To support the continuation of the Senate's previously approved security enhancement initiatives, additional funding in the amount of $787,000 will be transferred to PPS given its direct alignment with the PPS's mandate.

The PPS is also seeking permanent funding in the amount of $3 million to stabilize the protective posture in the newly opened 180 Wellington building, and to uphold pre-existing third party security agreements throughout the precinct.

Given the anticipated increase in visitors to the precinct and grounds of Parliament Hill throughout Canada's 150th anniversary celebrations, a total of $400,000 is required in temporary funding to support the costs of the baggage screening facility at 90 Wellington Street through 2017-2018.

This renewed temporary funding will not only enhance the visitor experience, but it will also enable PPS to evaluate this facility's effectiveness, feasibility and long-term sustainability.

This results in a cumulative request of $5.3 million for previously approved and new security enhancement initiatives throughout the parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill.

In addition to the aforementioned operational enhancement initiatives funding requests, the PPS is seeking a permanent increase of $886,000 to fund a series of corporate service requirements. This includes the funding for full-time communications resources to support PPS's internal and external messaging, along with the funding necessary to fulfill the existing service level agreements with the House administration for the provision of human resource and information technology services.

PPS remains committed to operational excellence through the provision of professional physical security services throughout the parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill.

To further enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of its service delivery model, the PPS will focus on the ongoing implementation of existing and new resource optimization initiatives, the identification of opportunities to leverage innovation, and a strengthened commitment to collaboration with its various parliamentary partners.

This concludes my presentation.

My team and I look forward to your questions.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Speaker of the House of Commons]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm delighted to be back at the procedure and House affairs committee, where I spent some quality time while I was the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader between 2001 and 2003. It's nice to be back again, this time of course answering questions, or trying to, instead of asking them.

I'm pleased to be here with Superintendent Mike O'Beirne, the acting director of the Parliamentary Protective Service, and Mr. Robert Graham, the acting corporate services officer for the protective service. We're also joined by other members of the PPS management team: Superintendent Alain Laniel, the officer in charge of operational support; Inspector Marie-Claude Côté, the officer in charge of operations; and, Melissa Rusk, executive officer and senior adviser to the director.

Since its creation on June 23, 2015, the PPS has made significant progress in unifying the Parliament Hill physical security mandate and in establishing itself as a single and independent parliamentary entity. Over the course of fiscal year 2016-17, its first full financial cycle, the PPS has implemented a series of new operational and organizational initiatives while addressing the complexities of the evolving external security environment.

In September 2016, a supplementary budget request of $7 million was approved to support ongoing costs for Parliament Hill security, one-time initial costs for the launch of resources optimization initiatives, and the requirements stemming from organizational structure developments.

In support of PPS' determination to build on the progress to date, which includes further strengthening its capacity to support an autonomous security service throughout the Parliamentary Precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill, I am here to present PPS' supplementary estimates (C) and main estimates requests.

I'll begin by providing an overview of the PPS supplementary estimates (C) request, which totals $2.39 million, including a total voted budgetary requirement of $2.3 million and a statutory budgetary component of $90,000 to fund the employee benefit plan.

The total voted budgetary requirement is related to funding for an operational contingency fund and additional administrative requirements.

The PPS is seeking an operational contingency fund in the amount of $2.1 million dollars, which will be used for operational requirements not anticipated earlier in the year, including security for the Canada 150 celebrations on December 31, 2016, and for future requirements that may occur prior to the fiscal year-end.

In addition to the operational contingency fund, we are requesting a sum of $200,000 to fund administrative requirements. This includes funding for payroll, language training, and Employee Assistance Program services that the House of Commons Administration is providing to PPS on a cost-recovery basis throughout the 2016-2017 fiscal year.

Due to external labour relations factors, including delays associated with the negotiations surrounding the future collective bargaining units, PPS is requesting funds to cover the anticipated additional external legal services.

I hope I'm not going too fast for the interpreters, who I know do a fabulous job, but it can be challenging with someone who speaks as quickly as I do.

Let us now turn our attention to the PPS's main estimates request for 2017-18, which totals $68.2 million. This includes a voted budget component of $62.1 million and a $6.1-million statutory budget requirement for the employee benefits plan.

This 2017-18 main estimates request represents a $6.1-million increase over the PPS's 2016-17 main estimates submission. In addition to its permanent voted budget of $56.3 million, which was approved in the 2016-17 main estimates and established as a result of Bill C-59, the PPS is seeking an additional $6.1 million in permanent funding to support the ongoing implementation of security enhancements and to further stabilize its organizational structure.

Several reviews were conducted following the events of October 22, 2014, resulting in 161 recommendations for the improvement of security on Parliament Hill. The PPS received temporary funding approval in September 2016 to launch its mobile response team, or MRT, initiative. The implementation of this initiative will address a significant number of these 161 recommendations and enhance the PPS's overall response capacity. PPS is requesting permanent funding in the amount of $1.2 million to further implement and sustain the needs of this initiative.

To support the continuation of the Senate's previously approved security enhancement initiatives, additional funding in the amount of $787,000 will be transferred to the PPS on April 1, 2017, given the direct alignment with the PPS's mandate.

PPS is also seeking permanent funding in the amount of $3 million to stabilize the protective posture in the newly reopened Wellington Building, and to uphold pre-existing third party security agreements throughout the Precinct.

Given the anticipated increase in the number of visitors to the Precinct and grounds of Parliament Hill throughout Canada's 150th anniversary celebrations, a total of $400,000 in temporary funding is required to support the costs of the baggage screening facility at 90 Wellington through 2017-2018. This renewed temporary funding request will not only enhance the visitor experience but will enable PPS to evaluate this facility's effectiveness, feasibility and long-term sustainability.

This results in a cumulative request of $5.3 million for previously approved and new security enhancement initiatives throughout the Parliamentary Precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill.

In addition to the aforementioned funding request for operational enhancement initiatives, the PPS is seeking a permanent increase of $886,000 to fund a series of corporate service requirements. This includes funding for full-time communications resources to support the PPS's internal and external messaging, along with the funding that is necessary to fulfill its existing service-level agreements with the House administration for the provision of human resources, as well as information and technical services.

In closing, the PPS remains steadfast in its commitment to operational excellence through the provision of professional physical security services throughout the parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill, something that I think is very important. It's certainly important to me for the security of everyone who works here and all those who visit us here.

To further enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of its service delivery model, the PPS will focus on the ongoing implementation of existing and new resource optimization initiatives, the identification of opportunities to leverage innovation, and a strengthened commitment to collaboration with its various parliamentary partners.

This concludes my overview of the PPS's supplementary estimates (C) and 2017-18 main estimates request, Mr. Chair. I look forward, and we look forward, to the questions that are to come.

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak today in support of the government's Bill C-5, one of a number of actions that the government has taken to restore the trust and confidence in our collective bargaining system in our country.

The bill goes to the heart of what we, as a government, believe in, which is collaborative, constructive relations with bargaining agents. It is a bill that highlights our belief that a balanced system of labour relations is the best one in a fair democracy.

This bill will repeal Division 20 of Bill C-59, passed in 2015.

Bill C-59 was the last omnibus budget bill introduced by the former government. It gave the government the power to circumvent the collective bargaining process and to unilaterally impose a new sick leave regime on public servants.

To be more precise, it gave the Treasury Board the legal authority to do the following in the core public administration: first, establish and modify the terms and conditions of employment related to the sick leave of employees despite the content of the Public Service Labour Relations Act that was negotiated in good faith in bargaining agreements; second, establish a short-term disability plan; and third, modify the long-term disability programs.

In other words, it gave the government the authority to ignore the existing Public Service Labour Relations Act in order to put in place a new sick leave and short-term disability program without the support or agreement of the bargaining agents representing public service employees. That is what we have been speaking about in this debate. It serves to undermine the good faith that government needs to earn in its bargaining with its public servants and their representatives.

As members may know, the Public Service Labour Relations Act was initially passed in 1967 to give public servants the right to unionize and to negotiate collective agreements.

It is vital that the parties work collaboratively and that the ability of the public service to serve and to protect the government be enhanced. That is obvious.

Bill C-59 sought to give the government the power to unilaterally impose a short-term disability plan if an agreement was not reached.

Unilateral measures are not collaborative measures. They do not foster good will or respect.

That is why we objected to these measures when they were introduced, and that is why we are here today repealing the legislation tabled by the previous government.

Federal employees are Canadians like us, who, each and every time they come to work, do so in service to Canada and Canadians, with the goal of improving or protecting the lives of their fellow citizens. They are the people who protect the integrity of our ecosystems by collecting the data and science that is needed to make the decisions, the people who issue our passports when we travel, who inspect high-risk foreign vehicles to ensure our ports stay safe and our waters clean, who work in the local post office, who ensure the safety of our food and the security of our borders.

However, in the past decade, a good number of fundamental labour rights that were hard won by workers and unions have been rolled back.

We need only look at Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which make union certification more difficult and decertification easier, and which would require unions to comply with demanding requirements for financial reporting.

These bills were passed without the usual consultation of employer, union and government when labour relations legislation is amended.

These are some of the measures the members opposite have been speaking about that we are committed to repealing.

The previous government did not follow the negotiation process and made it much more difficult for unions and employers to bargain collectively in good faith and work collaboratively in the interest of Canadians. In contrast, we believe in negotiations to achieve settlements that are both fair for public servants and for taxpayers. Threatening bargaining agents through a bill is not a basis for constructive negotiations.

We started by introducing a bill to repeal Bill C-377. That bill created unnecessary red tape for unions, requiring them to submit detailed financial information to the Canada Revenue Agency, including on non-labour relations activities. We also introduced legislation to repeal Bill C-525, which made it more difficult for employees to organize and negotiate collective agreements.

The President of the Treasury Board also committed to repealing the unfavourable provisions of Bill C-4, another omnibus budget bill passed in 2013, which sought to limit the ability of unions to represent their employees.

These are the important measures we have taken to restore fairness and balance in Canada's labour laws.

Let me sum up our responsible reasons for introducing Bill C-5. The bill would repeal the law that gives the government the power to unilaterally impose a new sick leave system on federal employees without collaboration or consultation.

During the election campaign, we committed to restoring fair and balanced labour legislation that recognizes the important role of unions in Canada.

We respect the collective bargaining process and we will bargain in good faith. We will work to negotiate collective agreements that are fair and reasonable for both public service employees and Canadians.

We want to restore balance, so that neither the employer, who represents the public, nor the union, which bargains for employees, has an unfair advantage in labour negotiations.

That is the system that best serves a just society. That is the system that will attract young millennials into our public service. That is the system in which we all exercise our responsibilities to ourselves, our communities, and to others. That is the system that best serves Canadians.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Saskatoon West for her remarks and for her support for Bill C-5, which we are discussing today. I can assure the member that the Liberal government is committed to restoring a fair and balanced approach to labour relations, and ultimately, to building a strong, robust economy. It is important to have a positive relationship with labour and civil servants, both for moral and equity reasons, and also to accomplish the objectives of the government, which is to build our economy and improve the lot of the middle class.

Bill C-5 is a step, but it does not end there. I want to assure the member that this government is committed to repealing other hurtful legislation and will do so this fall.

In talking about the positive aspects of restoring a culture of respect for and within the public service and the sense of value that the government has in the unions and civil servants as a force for positive change, how does the member see the kind of change that this government has committed to through repealing Bill C-59 and other hurtful legislation helping to attract millennials and the younger workforce into the civil service, to bring their talents and bright ideas to the big challenges, some of which she named, such as climate change and health care, and to provide the services that Canadians depend on?

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to talk today about this important issue. Bill C-5 is one step on a long road to recovery for Canadian public service workers, and more generally, for the rights of all Canadian workers.

The previous government's concerted assault on the rights of Canada's public service workers, on the value of the important services they provided, and by extension, on the rights of every hard-working Canadian have really negatively impacted our ability to attract new talent to the public sector and has seriously deteriorated the services the Canadian government is able to deliver to all Canadians. The result is costly. It is costly to the economy, to the Canadian way of life, and to the well-being of public servants, plus it creates gaping holes in our social fabric, which sadly means that particular segments of the Canadian population are left behind or are underserved.

The previous government's Bill C-4 showed little regard for basic business principles, willful ignorance of common and elementary knowledge about sickness in workplaces, and zero concern for the well-being of other people. In this day and age, there is no good reason to demand that a person go to work sick.

The previous government's trampling of workers' rights was shortsighted and unwarranted and has left a negative impact on the public sector and the Canadian way of life. Repealing the bill is obviously the right thing to do, but we can do better.

My NDP colleagues and I ask the current government to continue to stand up for workers' rights and to immediately repeal the previous government's Bill C-4, which interferes with free collective bargaining, infringes upon workers' rights to a safe work environment, and restricts the right to strike. The government should move immediately to repeal each section of this bill that undermines the constitutional rights of public service employees.

Under the previous government, we witnessed a major dismantling of important public sector departments. This made many Canadians uncomfortable, so uncomfortable, in fact, that some even wrote songs about it, which is partly why we have a new party in power today.

Many of these public sector departments provide the information, research, and analysis necessary for a government to make informed decisions. Being informed when making any decision is a key factor in making good decisions, whether that decision conforms to preconceived ideas or not.

Dr. Peter Wells, a former public servant and environmental scientist, said in an interview with the National Observer that the previous government was quite “simply anti-science, anti-evidence, and anti-informed policy and decision-making.... More than 2,000 positions and people were lost, many in my field [of environmental science], resulting in a loss of a generation of skills, knowledge, and capacity that were there to serve the public”.

“There to serve the public” is the important part here. It is there to serve the public good, not the good of a single political party or the agenda of a small group of ideologues. The public service is essential to a functioning democracy. They ensure that we live under the best conditions with the best resources and the best information available anywhere in the world. The health of our public sector plays a crucial role in whether we lead the world or fall behind. The public sector is essential to every Canadian's well-being and safety. In short, the public sector deserves respect, and public sector employees should be treated with respect.

Canadians want a Canada that trusts its public servants, because frankly, our public service workers are not the enemy. Canadians trust their public servants to show up to work every day and to diligently serve Canadians in what are often highly challenging and demanding situations. Canadians also understand that these same public servants should not show up to work sick. Passing on illnesses to co-workers and taking longer to get better only reduces productivity.

Trust is key in any healthy relationship. The Government of Canada is not a babysitter and should not babysit the people it is elected to serve. That is not the role of government. A government should trust the people who elected them, because unless we have forgotten, many of these people are our neighbours. Despite our many differences, we must respect our neighbours' right to freedom of speech, to health and well-being, and to a safe workplace. We must respect our neighbours' right to make their own decisions, to learn, and to have the space and resources to grow, because every single Canadian benefits when each of us has the opportunity to prove our potential.

Governments should provide leadership and vision, not micromanage public servants and certainly not abolish rights that will endanger the safety and well-being of public servants and ultimately the people they serve.

Moreover, our government should be working to build, not destroy. A government should protect and not harm. A government should not steal rights but respect them and provide opportunities for exercising those rights. That same government should also trust public sector workers to carry out the important work necessary to maintain the daily operations of the Canadian government.

Every day, thousands of our neighbours go to work to ensure that our food and borders are safe, that our pension cheques are delivered, and that the best of Canada is represented abroad. All of these workers make us proud, and our government should reflect that.

With any system, there is potential for abuse of that system by its users. There is always someone who will try to manipulate situations to their own perceived advantage, often at a cost to everyone else. That can be said of many systems. It can be said of governments, government services, and even representatives of governments themselves. However, like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, the previous Bill C-4 of the previous government declares everyone guilty until proven innocent, and, in the process, smashes the entire structure to pieces so that little usable remains.

Moreover, a parliamentary budget officer report from July 2014, requested by the former member for Ottawa Centre, shows that the previous president of the Treasury Board and the justification for this poorly though-out bill misrepresented the level of sick leave taken by civil servants. It clearly shows that the use of sick leave in the federal civil service imposes no significant cost on the government or taxpayers.

The PBO report states:

the incremental cost of paid sick leave was not fiscally material and did not represent material costs for departments in the [core public administration].

That means that most employees who call in sick are not replaced, resulting in no incremental cost for departments.

Likewise, and this is important, the PBO also confirmed that the use of sick leave by public servants is in line with the public sector. However, creating a problem where none exists to advance an ideology was the previous government's MO.

The previous government's Bill C-4 does absolutely nothing positive for Canada or Canadians and has paved the way for unenlightened ways of forcing Canadian public servants to go to work sick. Likewise, it sets a precedent that negatively impacts the whole of the Canadian working population.

Organized labour, like any professional association, is designed to look out for the well-being of its members. That is a simple fact. Every similar organization, whether it is a professional association, a chamber of commerce, or a taxpayers federation, does the same. Even pro athletes have their unions. In fact, that is the reason they organize. It to present strength through co-operation, to protect one another's rights, and to fight for more rights.

Organized labour, like other professional organizations, has provided leadership in our society. Its members have endured hardship and even ridicule while standing up for better working conditions. Their hard-won gains have benefited all Canadians, and many of these gains are taken for granted by many of us today: weekends, overtime pay, vacation pay, parental leave, health and safety regulations, and even sick days.

Creating a standard for all Canadian workers, unionized or not, to be treated with respect has led to all of us having the basic rights of association and freedom of speech and the right to a workplace that is safe. As small as it might seem, organized labour also helped set a precedent that if one is sick, one can stay home and not lose a day's pay or one's job. Despite what the previous government thought, this makes great business sense, and it has become a standard across the country and across sectors.

Today, these benefits are what helps an organization, private or public, attract top talent. It is also what helps keep that talent because measures such as sick leave ensure a modicum of decency between employer and employee, positively influence staffing efficiencies and stability, and express a confident statement regarding the well-being and health of an organization's or business's workforce. Given all the benefits that a happy, healthy workforce brings, it did seem strange that the federal government as an employer chose not to, or did not want to be a leader.

For example, Shift Development, a forward-thinking development company in my riding, pays a living wage to all its workers. Its CEO, Curtis Olson, says he pays all his employees a living wage rather than the minimum wage because he cannot afford not to. He said, “For me, as a business owner, the cost of employee turnover is a huge cost”. Mr. Olson knows the value of and relationship between high employee morale, health and stability, and increased returns from productivity, efficiency, and success. He said, “If I take care of my employees and help meet their financial and lifestyle needs, they’ll take care of the company and the growth of the company”. The Canadian government should learn from our business leaders' successes and start valuing and trusting their employees because without them the government cannot deliver a single service to Canadians.

The previous government's Bill C-4 was unenlightened and primitive. It pushed labour relations and standards back decades and set precedents that were regressive and reached far beyond the confines of the public service sector. It is incomprehensible to many Canadians why the previous government would want to erase rights that took decades and in some cases many generations to earn, rights the Conservatives wiped out in massive undemocratic omnibus swaths and a sweeping ideological mugging of Canadian rights and freedoms. These transgressions were made without consideration for the consequences for the Canadian working person, the economy, or the future Canadian workforce, our children.

Today, we are debating a return of only one of those rights. In the coming days, months, and years no doubt a great deal of time and energy will be lost to rebuilding what was destroyed by the previous government. Thanks to that government, we must move backward in order to move forward. Instead of debating a national living wage, which would increase the health and well-being of our local communities and economies, the previous government left us in the sorry state of debating the reinstatement of sick leave to public servants. If news reports about the current negotiations are accurate, the Liberal government has not lived up to all of its election promises about respecting the public service. It is all very good to promise to negotiate fairly and to bring a renewed respect to its dealings with public service workers, but if they are serving up some of the same offers as the previous government, it is not real change.

I urge the government to keep its promises and not break faith with the public service. It is my hope that the new boss is not the same as the old boss. Let us work to fix what is broken, including a pay system that has left thousands of workers unpaid or underpaid, the full effects of which are not yet to be seen. Let us get this bill passed now and move on to creating and implementing things such as a national housing strategy, which would save Canadians billions of dollars in health care and correctional services costs. Let us work on pressing issues such as quality affordable childcare, improving access to health care, and tackling climate change. Let us focus on improving the lives of families and seniors, and creating brighter futures for our young people. I know for a fact my riding would benefit from discussion on all of these issues, and I am sure my riding is not the only one in the country.

As such, while I support Bill C-5, more needs to be done to restore the numerous and hard-earned rights of Canadian workers, especially those in the public sector.

I urge the government to commit to repealing all the regressive changes made to labour law in the former government's Bill C-4. The previous government's Bill C-4 undermined the constitutional rights of federal public service employees to collective bargaining, including the right to strike. It also offered government negotiators an unfair advantage at the bargaining table. Unions, of course, fought against the changes throughout those legislative processes.

Happily, with collective bargaining about to resume in a new process for several tables of large unions, the government has the opportunity to make a gesture of good faith by committing to repeal provisions of the previous government's Bill C-4 affecting collective bargaining. That would be a start, because there are some seriously questionable aspects of that bill.

In fact, the Public Service Alliance of Canada asked the court to immediately declare that division 20 of Bill C-59, which is part of Bill C-4 of the previous government, is in violation of its members' charter rights because it denied the right of employees to good-faith bargaining by giving the employer the unilateral authority to establish all terms and conditions relating to sick leave, including establishing a short-term disability program, and modifying the existing long-term disability program; it allowed the Treasury Board to unilaterally nullify the terms and conditions in existing collective agreements; and it gave the employer the authority to override many of the provisions of the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

In short, the previous government's Bill C-4 gave the government unbridled authority to designate essential positions. It eliminated the public sector compensation analysis and research functions that had previously allowed the parties at the bargaining table to base wage offers and demands on sound evidence and facts.

The previous Bill C-4 also changed the economic factors that could be considered by a public interest commission or an arbitration board, which placed the employer's interests ahead of its employees and tipped the scales, shamelessly, in the employer's favour.

The NDP has stood with the public service workers and the public sector unions every step of the way, while right after right was stolen from them by the previous government. During and after the last campaign, the NDP proposed a comprehensive suite of reforms that would help ensure that the relationship between public service employees and government is responsible, reliable, and respectful, now and into the future. These measures include protecting whistleblowers, empowering the integrity commissioner, introducing a code of conduct for ministerial staff, and reining in the growing use of temporary work agencies at the expense of permanent jobs. We remain committed to taking these important steps forward.

However, beyond changing specific policies, what is really needed is a change of attitude. Our public service workers have been neglected, undermined, and abused by brutal cuts and restrictive legislation, under both Liberal and Conservative governments and administrations. It is time we revisit our thinking.

What do any of us know about what is possible until we change the way we have been thinking and try a new road, a road that respects the independence of public servants, that respects the important work they do, and that shows that respect by honestly and fairly coming to the bargaining table? The current government must commit to restoring capacity in the public service so that essential services for Canadians can be delivered.

The Liberal government has said it is a friend of labour, both during the election and in government, but sometimes its words and actions do not line up. Its exclusion of such important issues as staffing, deployment, harassment, and discipline from the collective bargaining process for the RCMP staff is one such disappointment.

Another is Bill C-10, which made the layoffs of 2,600 Air Canada and Aveos workers permanent by allowing Air Canada to ship aircraft maintenance jobs out of the country. The Air Canada Public Participation Act required the air carrier to keep heavy maintenance jobs in Montreal, Mississauga, and Winnipeg. In a unanimous ruling, the Quebec Court of Appeal recognized these obligations. However, instead of respecting the court's ruling, the present government decided to side with Air Canada, at the expense of workers.

I hope the government will stop saying one thing and doing another. I believe it is time it makes good on many election promises. I urge the government to make a commitment to repeal the previous government's Bill C-4.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

moved that Bill C-5, An Act to repeal Division 20 of Part 3 of the Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to engage the House on an important decision the government has made for employees of Canada's public service, their unions and for all Canadians.

The decision is as follows: the government will not use the powers in division 20 of Bill C-59, the Harper regime's anti-union legislation that currently enables the government to bypass negotiations with unions and unilaterally impose a sick leave system for federal employees.

As we have already told all bargaining agents, we will repeal this law.

This decision is in keeping with our government's commitment to bargain in good faith with public sector unions and to look for opportunities to modernize the sick leave and disability management system.

The Conservative government gratuitously disrespected the public service repeatedly. This time it did so when it decided to take the issue of sick leave off the negotiating table and give itself the power to unilaterally implement a plan of its own choosing.

Public servants were justifiably angry. They felt the previous government did not respect them and did not respect the collective bargaining process, and they were right.

From the beginning, our government has been committed to restoring a culture of respect for and within the public service. We have immense respect for our public service and the unions that represent them. We recognize the important roles they play.

During last year's election campaign, our government was clear in its opposition to Bill C-59 and other Harper government anti-union pieces of legislation. We understood that the changes made to the collective bargaining rights in both Bill C-59, division 20, and certain provisions of omnibus budget bill, Bill C-4, were neither fair nor balanced.

We pledged to introduce a bill this fall to restore the public service labour relations regime that was in place before the former government amended the legislation in 2013. In the meantime, we took steps to make current rounds of collective bargaining easier.

When we took power, our goal was to change the tone, to repair the relationship with public service employees, and to cultivate greater collaboration with the unions representing them.

That is because we value the important role that federal employees play as a force of positive change for Canadians. Every day, these public servants work for the sound governance of our country. They promote Canadian values and defend our interests within Canada and around the world. They deliver thousands of high-quality programs and services to Canadians. From operating icebreakers in the high Arctic to inspecting aircraft, from protecting our borders to peacekeeping abroad, from delivering employment insurance to issuing passports, from geologic research in the field to approving drugs for human use, from maintaining our national parks to preserving historic sites, our federal public service does all of this and much more.

Federal employees work hard across Canada and around the world.

We have seen the effect of their work as Canadians came together to welcome and settle some 25,000 Syrian refugees. That was a tremendous achievement that our public servants, within multiple departments, achieved working together.

This goes beyond just appreciating our employees and the work they do. We believe Canadians can achieve great things when we all work together. Indeed, our promise to work collaboratively with Canadians was a key cornerstone in our election platform.

Canadians want change in the way that governments treat and engage citizens. They want change in the way we work with unions and the labour movement, the way we work with members of Parliament, the media, indigenous peoples, the environmental community, all levels of government, veterans, business leaders, and so many others, all of whom want to contribute to building a better Canada.

By repealing division 20 of Bill C-59, the government is working with unions.

I would like to speak about the importance of rebooting our relations, broadly, with Canada's labour movement, but specifically with our public sector. It is really important to reset those relationships.

What we are doing here today is not simply a matter of demonstrating respect for and recognizing the importance of labour relations in governance. It is part of what we are doing as a government to work in partnership with the labour movement to achieve a better and more prosperous Canada.

One of the first things I did, after being named president of the Treasury Board, was to reach out to Robyn Benson, president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Debi Daviau, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, Ron Cochrane, co-chair of the National Joint Council, and other public sector leaders. I told them I wanted to restore a culture of respect for the public service, and respect and civility in labour relations.

The National Joint Council was among the first organizations I met with upon taking my responsibilities.

I want to send the following message: we will respect the collective bargaining process and negotiate in good faith. We are committed to reaching agreements, including on sick leave modernization, through collective bargaining.

This approach is crucial to the government's agenda. Canadians gave us a strong mandate to implement an ambitious and progressive agenda for change, to create jobs and grow the economy. However, we cannot get that done without an engaged, motivated, and respected public service. We need to bargain fairly, and in an environment of respect.

We know that we can accomplish more by working with one another than by working against one another. Collaboration is the only way to move forward together.

Real change of the type we envision for Canada can only happen when we work together, when we work collaboratively. Public servants are from diverse backgrounds. They work in communities across the country, and they work together to build a better Canada. We have backed up our commitment with actions.

In December, I made a commitment to the public service unions to go back to the bargaining table to negotiate in good faith. That is what we have done. We are looking for ways to modernize the sick leave system and reach agreements that are fair and reasonable for employees and Canadians.

We also committed that we would not exercise the powers given to the government to unilaterally implement a disability and sick leave management system. On January 21, we confirmed that we would be repealing that legislation, and on February 5, we introduced Bill C-5 to do that.

With the threat of Bill C-59 removed, we can have a genuine conversation with unions representing the public service on how to modernize the sick leave system in the public service. The current system can, for example, fail employees who have recently entered the public service and who have not accumulated a large bank of sick days. This is of particular concern to our government, and it is of concern to me, given our desire as a government to see the public service attract more young people to its ranks, attract millennials to the public service.

The fact is that the average age for new hires within the public service today is 37. We would like to see the federal public service do more to attract and retain millennials, who represent Canada's best and brightest generation and prospects for the future. However, we cannot do that if we do not have a system of sick leave that recognizes their importance. That is one of the changes we want to make.

Also, our current system fails employees, in our view, who suffer from mental health challenges and other chronic medical conditions. These are some of the important reasons that we are committed to a modernized system.

In terms of working together, we understand that wellness and productivity go hand in hand. Workforce wellness generates higher levels of employee engagement, which, in turn, leads to better-performing workplaces. We understand that workplace wellness means mental, as well as physical, health issues. As the country's largest employer, we have to tackle this challenge in our own ranks. To that end, we will be working to create a welcoming environment for free and frank discussion of mental wellness and mental health issues.

The fact is that our country is enriched and strengthened by different perspectives from the government, federal employees, and unions.

What is more, we know that we cannot provide Canadians with quality services if federal employees are not healthy, empowered, and involved. There is definitely a good dynamic for dealing with these problems and a general interest in doing so. By working with the unions, we are going to make real progress.

I want to recognize the excellent work done in this area of mental health by the joint task force on mental health, and the crucial work of the Public Service Alliance of Canada in advancing this agenda. The joint task force established a positive and collaborative partnership between representatives of the employer and from an equal number of bargaining agents. That is why we are consulting with employees on the federal public service workplace mental health strategy.

With this strategy, we are committing to exploring aspects of mental health with our employees, and to listening and responding to their needs. The strategy will evolve over time, and improvements will be based on research, good information, and employee feedback. This is an important step in helping to improve the psychological well-being of our employees. It is a great example of what we can achieve when we work together with the unions to make a real difference and to achieve important change for their members.

We are committed to taking further action, together with the public service unions and with the public service broadly, to strengthen our public service and to restore civility to our negotiations. I want to reset the relationship with our employees and their unions, and move responsibly and fairly to build the public service that Canadians need.

If we are going to meet the real challenges we face as a country, from improving economic opportunity and security for Canadians to settling thousands of refugees, we need to maintain a motivated and engaged public service. We have a wonderful opportunity here. From bargaining in good faith to open accountable government, to the utmost care and prudence and handling of public funds, we can continue to build a high performance public service for Canadians.

We need to work constructively and collaboratively to do it. Let me be clear. That does not mean that we as a government will always agree with the unions representing the public service on every single issue. Sometimes the union leaders will change our minds and sometimes we might even change their minds on something. However, if we are engaged collaboratively, we can disagree without being disagreeable, and we can work together to come together to build a stronger public service and better government for Canadians. Ultimately, we can learn from each other. We can negotiate in good faith to reach agreements that are fair and responsible for all parties.

In closing, Canadians know we find ourselves in a challenging fiscal situation and a slow growth economy. We were elected on a strong and progressive plan to grow that economy. If we are to implement our agenda to invest, to create jobs, and strengthen the middle class, we will need to be prudent, and it will take sound and responsible fiscal management and real collaboration.

As part of that, we have committed to fair and balanced labour laws that acknowledge the important roles of the unions. That is why we will resolve issues at the bargaining table in a way that is fair and reasonable for the public service and all Canadians. We will not be bargaining in public. We will be bargaining at the bargaining table, and that is where we ought to be bargaining, with the utmost respect for our public servants and understanding the importance of us working together.

The best is yet to come for Canada. The only way to ensure that we as Canadians achieve what we are capable of and that Canadians will benefit from all of this important work is to work together collaboratively, all of us as Canadians, members of Parliament, public servants, provincial, federal and municipal governments, the business and environmental communities, and indigenous peoples. We have a lot of work to do in this country and we need to work hard together to achieve our full potential.

Members of our public service play an important role with respect to not only our plan as a government but also achieving our potential as a country.

I look forward to this debate and hope that all hon. members would join me in supporting this piece of legislation.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Okay. From the beginning until last year, before Bill C-59, were you receiving money from SISIP?

[Walter Callaghan]

Sometimes it's yearly, sometimes it's every few years. Because I'm a reservist, this is a whole other complicated ball game that I don't know if I'll have time to get into, the way that our benefits are done. Because I was permanently injured, I'm still on SISIP, but because of the changes that occurred last year with Bill C-58 and Bill C-59 , I'm also receiving financial benefits from VAC. Because I was deemed permanently injured, the provision of stuff like psychotherapy or the approval for psychotherapy, massage therapy, physiotherapy, all those go through VAC. So I'm receiving annual documents from SISIP, much like Paul Franklin being told that he must prove he has no legs anymore. In my case, I'm having to prove that I still have a demon haunting every living moment, and my back injury is still here.

With VAC, the package I got this morning contained the documents for the two-year mandatory review of permanent status. My original classification as permanently disabled with VAC occurred in 2012-13, so it's not even two years. There's a discrepancy on when they're sending out documents, but because I was removed from the rehab program, to maintain my weekly massage therapy and physiotherapy, both of which are used for pain management, and the biweekly psychotherapy, we're having to submit documents every four to six months saying I'm still injured, I still need this help. It is getting ridiculous.

Public Service Labour Relations Act

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to offer my support for Bill C-7, a bill that respects the rights of the dedicated women and men serving in the RCMP by providing a new labour relations framework for RCMP members and reservists.

The bill is a significant step forward in the history of the RCMP and its labour rights. It would enable RCMP members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining. I am proud of this initiative that is so in the public interest and serves the rights and well-being of these dedicated women and men.

Our national mounted police force has not only a storied past but now a stronger future. Since its beginning in 1873 when Prime Minister John A. Macdonald introduced in the House the act establishing the Northwest mounted police, the RCMP has been an integral part of Canada's development. From the 1874 march west from Fort Dufferin, Manitoba to policing the Klondike gold rush, to the St. Roch passage through the Northwest Passage, to the last spike of the Canadian Pacific railway in Craigellachie, British Columbia, to the vital roles in World Wars I and II, the RCMP has played an instrumental role throughout our country's history.

Despite its long, storied contribution to Canada, its members did not have the full freedom of association with respect to collective bargaining. That would now change. The Supreme Court of Canada has removed the barriers RCMP members faced in exercising this right, a right guaranteed to all Canadians by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The bill provides the appropriate framework for the labour legislation that will govern the RCMP. It gives RCMP members and reservists the same access to a collective bargaining process that other police forces in Canada have.

To do that, the bill amends the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to create a new labour relations regime for RCMP members and reservists.

More specifically, it will give RCMP members and reservists the right to choose whether they wish to be represented by an employee organization during collective agreement negotiations with the Treasury Board of Canada.

As I said, before the Supreme Court decision, RCMP members could not organize or participate in collective bargaining.

Indeed, they have been excluded from the labour relations regime governing even the federal public service since the introduction of collective bargaining for this sector. Instead, members of the RCMP had access to a non-unionized labour relations program. This program had initially been imposed by section 96 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regulations in 1988. It was then repealed and replaced by substantially similar section 56 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regulations in 2014.

Its core component was the staff relations representative program, or SRRP, the primary mechanism through which RCMP members could raise labour relations issues. It was also the only forum of employee representation recognized by management, and it was governed by a national executive committee.

The program was staffed by member representatives from various RCMP divisions and regions elected for a three-year term by both regular and civilian members of the RCMP. Two of its representatives acted as the formal point of contact with the national management of the RCMP.

The aim of the SRRP was that at each level of hierarchy, members' representatives and management consulted on human resources initiatives and policies. However, the final word always rested with management.

Many changes were subsequently made to this labour relations regime, which increased the independence of the staff relations representative program.

However, none of these changes had much of an impact on its objective, place or function within the traditional RCMP chain of command.

In May 2006, two private groups of RCMP members filed a constitutional challenge on behalf of RCMP members in Ontario and British Columbia regarding labour issues.

These two groups were never recognized for the purposes of collective bargaining or consultation on labour issues by RCMP management or the federal government.

They saw the declaration that the combined effect of the exclusion of RCMP members from the application of the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the imposition of the SRRP as a labour relations regime unjustifiably infringed members' freedom of association.

The Supreme Court ruled that key parts of the RCMP labour relations regime were unconstitutional. It struck down the exclusion of RCMP members from the definition of employee in the Public Service Relations Act as unconstitutional, and it held that a section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regulations infringed on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, the court affirmed that section 2(d) of the charter “protects a meaningful process of collective bargaining that provides employees with a degree of choice and independence sufficient to enable them to determine and pursue their collective interests”.

In the case of the RCMP, the court determined that the existing labour relations regime, built around the staff relations representative program, denied RCMP members that choice, and imposed a program that did not permit RCMP members to identify and advance their workplace concerns free from management's influence. It found that the staff relations representative program did not meet the criterial necessary for meaningful collective bargaining. Under this program, RCMP members were represented by organizations they did not choose, and they worked within a structure that lacked independence from government. The court held that this violated their charter right to freedom of association.

I am proud that our new government's bill, Bill C-7, addresses just that. It brings labour rights governing this group of federal employees into line with the federal public sector labour relations regime, which has been in place for over 40 years. It provides RCMP members and reservists with a sufficient degree of choice and independence from management while recognizing their unique operational reality.

The RCMP is a nationwide federal public sector police organization, and thus its labour regime should be aligned and consistent with the fundamental framework for labour relations and collective bargaining for the federal public service.

Bill C-7 includes several general exclusions that mirror exclusions already in place for the rest of the public service. For example, staffing, pensions, organization of work, and assignments of duties are excluded from collective bargaining. Each of these issues is instead dealt with under other legislation, for example, the Public Service Employment Act for staffing, the Public Service Superannuation Act for pensions, and the Financial Administration Act for the organization of work and the assignment of duties. This system has been in place for years, and it works.

Having recently taken the GBA+ training module that government provides, which is gender-based analysis, I was impressed to see how the RCMP has been implementing gender-based analysis, the lens that ensures that both women and men are properly served in policy decisions taken by management. I want to congratulate the RCMP for being a leader in the implementation of this very important program.

There are other ways in which RCMP members can express their concerns about labour issues. If a uniformed member has a concern about the safety of the uniform, he or she can speak to the workplace health and safety committee. Together with the union representatives, the committee can study the issue and identify the best possible solution based on the evidence.

Moreover, workplace health and safety issues can be included in the collective agreement through bargaining. If members have concerns about employment conduct, they can share them with the union representative on the labour-management committee.

In other words, there are other ways for RCMP members and the union to raise concerns outside of the collective bargaining process. The members and the union can work with management to improve the workplace.

I would also like to point out that some have criticized the bill and said that only pay and benefits can be collectively bargained. This is simply not the case. There is a whole host of other issues that can be collectively bargained. Conditions of work, such as hours of work, scheduling, call back, and reporting conditions, can be collectively bargained. Leave provisions, such as designated paid holidays, vacation leave, sick leave, and parental leave, can be collectively bargained. Labour relations matters, such as terms and conditions for grievance procedures and procedures for classification and workforce adjustment, can be collectively bargained. For example, the decision to lay off an employee is a staffing matter, which is not subject to negotiation. However, measures such as compensation or the manner in which layoffs are conducted may be negotiated.

As I said, the Supreme Court invalidated the existing labour relations framework for the RCMP because it violated the charter right to freedom of association. The court suspended its judgment for one year to give government time to consider its options. The government sought an extension and was given an additional four months to provide a new labour relations framework for RCMP members and reservists. Unfortunately, the suspension of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision has now expired. Therefore, it is important that the government move quickly to put in place a new labour relations framework to minimize disruption for RCMP members, reservists, and management.

Indeed, delaying the passage of this legislation is problematic for a number of reasons. There currently is an overlap between the RCMP Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, which could result in confusion and conflicting interpretations. In addition, members could be represented by multiple bargaining agents, making it difficult for the RCMP to maintain a cohesive national approach to labour relations. That is especially worrisome given the nature and function of our national police force, in which members are posted to positions anywhere across the country in a variety of functions and activities. The potential to be represented by a number of various bargaining units could be very confusing.

Should this not pass quickly, there is also the concern of uncertainty among RCMP members about their collective bargaining rights and the measures they can take should they need access to representation.

Let me add two further arguments for the swift passage of this legislation. The government took steps, including consultations with RCMP members in the summer of 2015 to bring this new framework into compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling. Last summer, regular members of the RCMP were consulted through an online survey and town hall meetings to seek their views on potential elements of a labour relations framework.

At the same time, Public Safety Canada consulted with the provinces, territories, and municipalities that are served by the RCMP through police service agreements. Public Safety Canada will continue the dialogue with contracting parties as the new regime is implemented. The findings from these consultations were very helpful and instructive in developing the elements of Bill C-7.

Finally, let me add that this bill is also consistent with our government's efforts to restore fair and balanced labour laws in this country. We believe in collective bargaining. That is why, for example, we introduced Bill C-5, which would repeal division 20 of Bill C-59, the 2015 budget implementation act, which was tabled last April by the previous government. Division 20 would have provided the government with the authority to unilaterally override the collective bargaining process and impose a new sick leave system on the public service. By repealing those provisions in Bill C-59, we are also demonstrating our respect for the collective bargaining process.

We believe in fair and balanced labour relations, and we recognize the important role that unions play in Canada.

That is why we have also introduced measures to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which were also passed without the usual consultation process for labour relations law reform by the previous government. Bill C-377 placed new financial reporting requirements on unions, and Bill C-525 changed how unions could be certified and decertified.

Bill C-7 restores the power of the federal Public Sector Labour Relations Board to select the certification or decertification method appropriate to each particular situation, and I would say fair method to both the representing and the represented parties, rather than being limited to the mandatory vote method, which can skew a decision against the union in certain circumstances.

The previous government had research and a report that concluded that very situation.

Recently, on May 25, the government announced its intention to repeal portions of the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2, division 17. The portions in question have to do with changes made to essential services, collective bargaining and processes for grievances, and dispute resolution without any consultations with public sector partners. We took these important measures to ensure that workers are free to organize and that unions and employers can bargain collectively in good faith.

Bill C-7 honours this right, a right that has long been exercised by all other police officers in Canada. It is the right to good faith collective bargaining. This bill would institute this right in law. It would lay out the rules that govern labour relations for RCMP members and reservists, and enshrine the principles and values of our society as reflected in the charter and as required by the Supreme Court of Canada. It would recognize the particular circumstances of our unique national police force, the RCMP.

I would ask my colleagues to do the right thing and support the passage of this bill, so that it becomes law without further delay.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Speaker of the House of Commons]

Additionally, the House is seeking $600,000 to continue the implementation of the emergency notification system—one of our priorities.

Another strategic priority involves modernizing wireless telecommunications services by making the latest smart phones and tablets available to members and staff. A mobile work environment gives members and House administration employees much greater flexibility to carry out their activities and work. This commitment will allow the house to be more adaptable to the ever-changing demands of parliamentary work.

An example of a recent change to the way we do business is of course the creation of the electronic petition system, which was launched in December. As of mid-April, 64 e-petitions had been opened, and more than 150,000 Canadians had added their signatures electronically in support of various policy initiatives. To continue to support the e-petitions system, funding of $195,000 is being requested for 2016-17 and subsequent years.

We will now move on to funding allocated for the electoral boundaries redistribution.

Prior to the election in the fall of 2015, 30 constituencies were added. In June 2014, the board approved temporary funding of $17.6 million for 2015-2016 and permanent funding of $24.5 million for 2016-2017 and subsequent years.

This funding takes into consideration requirements for members, including pay and pension, travel, telecommunications services, office budgets, parliamentary and constituency office expenditures, and additional funding requirements to enable the House administration to support the institution and ensure the same level of services to the expanded membership.

Now for the PPS, the Parliamentary Protective Service, which is one month shy of its first anniversary. It has implemented a single command oversight mechanism, formalized an intelligence unit, and is in the process of deploying a common uniform. Integrated teams now work together on a daily basis at the vehicle screening facility, the place we all know as “the car wash”.

The PPS is focused on deploying resources so as to make the best use of the expertise that already exists within the current complement of employees. I think we're all aware of the increased security presence on Parliament Hill.

In 2016-17 the main estimates for the PPS total $62.1 million, including a voted budgetary requirement of $56.3 million, as well as a statutory budget component of $5.8 million to fund the employee benefit program. The PPS's 2015-16 budget was established by Bill C-59, which transferred the unexpended physical security funds from the Senate, House of Commons, and RCMP.

It's recommended that $32.3 million be permanently transferred to the PPS from the Senate and House of Commons protective services and the RCMP A-base budget.

This would fund personnel, operations and maintenance, and full-time equivalents. This amount includes $4.7 million needed to reimburse the RCMP for the cost of physical security for operations and maintenance. A permanent increase of $14.5 million is required to sustain the current security posture and $5.1 million to sustainably support previously approved salary increases, security enhancement initiatives, and the integrated organizational structure.

The PPS requires a permanent increase of $3.9 million for the funding of an administrative team to manage this new parliamentary organization. A total of $400,000 is required in temporary funding to support the renewal of the baggage screening facility at 90 Wellington through 2016-2017.

This concludes my overview of the House of Commons and the PPS's 2016-17 main estimates. I look forward to questions from members.

Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we take respect for Parliament seriously. The way we start is by putting forth a budget that is really focused on how we can help Canadians. I would like to remind the member opposite of a few numbers that might be helpful for him to put that in context.

In 2010, the previous government put forward Bill C-9, which was a budget bill with 904 pages. I do not know how Parliament can go through 904 pages, but I do know that Canadians expect us to go through what we want to go through, which is the budget that we have put forward and which is a much more reasonable budget for people to understand.

I would remind him of Bill C-13, put forward in 2011 with 658 pages, again vastly more than triple the number of pages in our budget 2016. Maybe I can move to Bill C-43 from 2014, with 478 pages.

We will take no lessons from members on the opposite side about respecting Parliament. We have debated the budget for almost twice as many hours as they put forward in Bill C-43 and Bill C-59. We have had the time we need to reflect on this legislation, and we would like to move forward so we can make a difference for Canadians, which is what they elected us to do.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the amount of debate and the speakers on Bill C-15 is either comparable or much higher than debates on budget implementation acts from the previous government. In most cases, those BIAs were close to double the number of pages that are in Bill C-15.

I can say that including today, our government will have provided for almost 19 hours of debate at second reading. If we look at the previous session of Parliament, the previous government shut down second reading debate on two budget bills, Bill C-43 and Bill C-59, in under 10 hours. We have already nearly doubled the amount of time for debate at second reading on Bill C-15.

We are proud of the bill, and we are very much looking forward to putting it forward and getting it passed for Canadians so we can make a real difference in their lives.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise today in the House in support of Bill C-7. In my riding of London North Centre we have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Ontario headquarters, as well as the RCMP London, Ontario, detachment. Combined, these two offices have approximately 165 regular members. Many of these individuals are my constituents, I am proud to say.

I am also very proud of the work these men and women do in keeping Canadians safe every single day. With that in mind, it is an honour to be part of this debate and take a stand on behalf of these men and women, the members and reservists of the RCMP.

The bill before us today would uphold the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of RCMP members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining. I emphasize that point. Collective bargaining is a right that other police officers in Canada have enjoyed for many years, but it is a right that has been denied to the members and reservists of the RCMP, individuals who over the last 143 years have contributed so much to our proud, strong, and free nation. This bill would rectify that issue.

This bill is a clear and reasoned response to the Supreme Court ruling of January 16, 2015. The court affirmed in that decision that subsection 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “protects a meaningful process of collective bargaining that provides employees with a degree of choice and independence sufficient to enable them to determine and pursue their collective interests”. The court also determined that, “the current labour relations regime denies RCMP members that choice, and imposes on them a scheme that does not permit them to identify and advance their workplace concerns free from management’s influence”.

It is, therefore, my pleasure to support this bill today, a bill that would provide RCMP members and reservists with freedom of choice and independence from management while still recognizing their unique operational reality. The bill in question is a product of careful consideration of the result of consultations with key stakeholders, the first with regular members of the RCMP and the second with provinces, territories, and municipalities that have policing agreements with the RCMP.

Bill C-7 has a number of important features, and I will now go over those briefly.

It would provide for independent binding arbitration as the dispute resolution process for bargaining impasses. Consistent with other police forces across this country, the members of the RCMP bargaining unit would not be permitted to strike. This was the strong preference of those who participated in the online consultation.

The bill would also provide for a single national bargaining unit composed solely of RCMP members appointed to a rank and reservists; and the RCMP bargaining agent, should one be certified, would have as its primary mandate the representation of RCMP members. Again, regular members showed clear support for these provisions. The bill would also exclude officers appointed to the ranks of inspector and above from representation. Finally, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board would be the administrative tribunal for collective bargaining matters related to the RCMP bargaining units, as well as grievances related to a collective agreement.

The bill before us today is consistent with our government's efforts to restore fair and balanced labour laws in this country. Take, for instance, Bill C-5, which would repeal division 20 of Bill C-59, the 2015 budget implementation bill, tabled last April by the previous government. It gave the government the authority to unilaterally override the collective bargaining process and impose a new sick leave system onto the public service.

The Public Service Labour Relations Act was originally passed in 1967 to give public servants the right to unionize and bargain collectively. It is fundamental to ensuring collaborative efforts between the parties and to improving the ability of the public service to serve and protect the public interest.

I have many public service employees in my riding of London North Centre. In fact, I had the privilege of meeting with some of their leadership last week and they made their voices heard.

The actions of the previous government, to unilaterally impose a new sick leave system while ignoring the collective bargaining process, were unfortunate and disrespectful. Our government made it clear that we would not be party to an approach that disregards the process of negotiation between an employer and a group of employees aimed at reaching agreements on the terms and conditions of employment. By repealing those provisions in Bill C-59, we are demonstrating our respect for the collective bargaining process.

We believe in collective bargaining, and the bill before us today honours our belief in this right. We also believe in fair and balanced labour relations, yet over the last few years, many fundamental labour rights have been rolled back. We can just look at Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which would both have changed how unions could be certified and decertified, and would place new financial reporting requirements on them.

These bills were passed without the traditional employer, union, and government consultation process used for labour relations law reform. The result has been that it is now more difficult for unions and the employer to bargain collectively in good faith. We need, instead, to ensure that workers can organize freely, bargain collectively in good faith, and work in safe environments. To that end, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour has also introduced legislation to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

Bill C-4 would restore the procedures for the certification and the revocation of certification of bargaining agents that existed prior to June 16, 2015. This bill would also amend the Income Tax Act to remove the unnecessary requirements on labour organizations and labour trusts for the public reporting of financial information.

As hon. members are well aware, legislation is already in place to ensure that unions make such financial information available. Section 110 of the Canada Labour Code, for instance, requires unions to provide financial statements to their members upon request and free of charge, rendering these additional reporting requirements unnecessary. The bill before us today is very much in keeping with our belief in fair and balanced labour relations.

Engaging in collective bargaining is a right long exercised by all other police forces in Canada. The bill would respect that right while recognizing the particular circumstances of the RCMP as a national police force. It is time for us to give RCMP members and reservists the respect they are due.

I again would like to thank those members and reservists of the RCMP for their dedicated service to our country. I am proud to have such a strong RCMP presence in my riding of London North Centre, and I commend RCMP members for going to work each and every day with the safety of all Canadians and all Londoners at the forefront of their minds.

To that end, I ask all members to show their support for members and reservists of the RCMP by voting in favour of this bill.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Don Valley East. I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to rise today to support Bill C-7.

It is an honour to participate in this debate and take a stand on behalf of the members and reservists of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Today's bill seeks to uphold the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of RCMP members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is a right that other police officers in Canada have enjoyed for many years. RCMP members and reservists have been denied that right, despite the significant contribution they have made to our proud, strong, and free nation over the past 143 years.

This bill would remedy that situation. It is a clear and reasoned response to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court on January 16, 2015. The court indicated that section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects a meaningful process of collective bargaining that provides employees with a degree of choice and independence sufficient to enable them to determine and pursue their collective interests. The court also stated that the current RCMP labour relations regime denies RCMP members that choice, and imposes on them a scheme that does not permit them to identify and advance their workplace concerns free from management’s influence.

I thank the Supreme Court for this ruling, and I am pleased to support this bill today, which would give RCMP members and reservists freedom of choice and independence from management, while recognizing their unique operational reality.

This bill was carefully developed from the results of consultations with key stakeholders. The initial consultations were held with regular members of the RCMP. The next round of consultations were held with the provinces, territories, and municipalities that have police service agreements with the RCMP.

There are some important features in Bill C-7. First and foremost, it gives access to independent, binding arbitration when the bargaining dispute resolution process reaches an impasse. Members of the RCMP bargaining unit will not have the right to strike, which is in line with the practices of other police forces across the country. Those who participated in the online consultation expressed a strong preference for this provision.

The bill will also create a single, nation-wide bargaining unit composed of RCMP members appointed to a rank as well as reservists. In order to be certified, an RCMP bargaining agent must have as its primary mandate the representation of RCMP members. Once again, regular members have shown strong support for these provisions. The bill also provides for the exclusion of officers at the inspector level and above from representation.

Lastly, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board will act as the administrative tribunal for matters related to the RCMP bargaining unit, as well as grievances related to the provisions of the collective agreement.

This bill is in line with the government's efforts to restore fair and balanced labour laws in this country.

Consider, for example, Bill C-5, which repeals division 20 of Bill C-59, the bill to implement budget 2015, introduced in April of last year by the previous government.

That bill gave the government the power to unilaterally override the collective bargaining process and impose a new sick leave system on the public service.

The Public Service Staff Relations Act was first introduced in 1977 in order to give public servants the right to organize and to bargain collectively. Guaranteeing collaborative efforts among the parties is crucial, as is increasing the capacity of the public service to serve and protect the public interest.

Our government has made it abundantly clear that it will not adopt an approach that does not take into account the bargaining process between an employer and a group of employees who want to reach agreements on employment conditions.

By repealing these provisions of Bill C-59, we are demonstrating our respect for the collective bargaining process. We believe in collective bargaining. Today's bill is a testament to our belief in that right.

We also believe in fair and balanced labour relations. Unfortunately, over the past few years, many basic labour rights have been undermined. Consider Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, for example, which will change how unions can be certified or decertified and will impose new financial reporting requirements on them.

Those bills were passed without the usual consultation process involving employers, unions, and the government, which was used during the reform of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. As a result, it is now harder for unions and employers to bargain in good faith.

Instead we must ensure that workers are free to organize, bargain collectively in good faith, and ensure safe workplaces for themselves. To make that happen, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour introduced a bill to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

Bill C-4 restores the bargaining agent certification and decertification processes that were in place before June 16, 2015. Bill C-4 also amends the Income Tax Act to get rid of unnecessary requirements imposed on labour organizations and labour trusts with regard to releasing certain financial information.

As hon. members know, legislative measures are already in place to ensure that unions make that financial information available. Under section 110 of the Canada Labour Code, unions are required to provide financial statements to their members upon request and free of charge, which makes these requirements to produce extra reports unnecessary.

In conclusion, the bill being introduced today is consistent with our belief in fair and balanced labour relations. Every other police force in Canada has had the right to engage in collective bargaining for quite some time. This bill respects that right, while recognizing the particular circumstances of the RCMP as a national police force.

It is time for us to give RCMP members and reservists the respect they deserve. To that end, I am calling on all hon. members to show their support for RCMP members and reservists by voting in favour of this bill.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to support Bill C-7.

It is an honour to participate in this debate and take a stand on behalf of the members and reservists of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the RCMP.

Today's bill seeks to uphold the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of RCMP members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is a right that other police officers in Canada have enjoyed for many years.

However, RCMP members and reservists have been denied that right, despite the significant contribution they have made to our proud, strong, and free nation over the past 143 years. My personal connection to this file dates back to almost the very beginning. My great-great-grandfather, Dr. Louis Paré, was the assistant chief surgeon for the Royal Northwest Mounted Police.

This bill will remedy that situation. It is a clear and reasoned response to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court on January 16, 2015, which indicated that section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms “protects a meaningful process of collective bargaining that provides employees with a degree of choice and independence sufficient to enable them to determine and pursue their collective interests”.

The court stated, “The current RCMP labour relations regime denies RCMP members that choice, and imposes on them a scheme that does not permit them to identify and advance their workplace concerns free from management’s influence.”

I thank the Supreme Court for this ruling, and I am pleased to support this bill today, which would give RCMP members and reservists freedom of choice and independence from management, while recognizing their unique operational reality.

This bill was carefully developed from the results of consultations held with key stakeholders. The initial consultations were held with regular members of the RCMP. The next round of consultations were held with the provinces, territories, and municipalities that have police service agreements with the RCMP.

There are some important features in Bill C-7. First and foremost, it gives access to independent, binding arbitration when the bargaining dispute resolution process reaches an impasse.

Members of the RCMP bargaining unit will not have the right to strike, which is in line with the practices of other police forces across the country. Those who participated in the online consultation expressed a strong preference for this provision.

The bill will also create a single, nation-wide bargaining unit composed of RCMP members appointed to a rank as well as reservists. In order to be certified, an RCMP bargaining agent must have as its primary mandate the representation of RCMP members.

Once again, regular members have shown strong support for these provisions. The bill also provides for the exclusion of officers at the inspector level and above from representation.

Lastly, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board will act as the administrative tribunal for matters related to the RCMP bargaining unit, as well as grievances related to the provisions of the collective agreement.

This bill is in line with the government's efforts to restore fair and balanced labour rights in this country. Consider, for example, Bill C-5, which repeals division 20 of Bill C-59, the bill to implement budget 2015, introduced in April of last year by the previous government. That bill gave the government the power to unilaterally override the collective bargaining process and impose a new sick leave system on the public service.

The Public Service Staff Relations Act was first introduced in 1977 in order to give public servants the right to organize and to bargain collectively. Guaranteeing collaborative efforts between the parties is crucial, as is increasing the capacity of the public service to serve and protect the public interest.

Our government has made it abundantly clear that it will not adopt an approach that does not take into account the bargaining process between an employer and a group of employees who want to reach agreements on employment conditions.

By repealing these provisions of Bill C-59, we are demonstrating our respect for the collective bargaining process. We believe in collective bargaining. Today's bill is a testament to our belief in that right. We also believe in fair and balanced labour relations. Unfortunately, over the past few years, many basic labour rights have been undermined.

Consider Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which will change how unions can be certified or decertified and impose new financial reporting requirements on them.

Those bills were passed absent any of the usual consultation involving employers, unions, and the government, which took place during the Public Service Staff Relations Act reform.

As a result, it is now harder for unions and employers to bargain effectively in good faith. We must ensure that workers are free to organize, bargain collectively in good faith, and ensure safe workplaces for themselves.

To make that happen, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour introduced a bill to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. Bill C-4 restores the bargaining agent certification and decertification processes that were in place before June 16, 2015.

Bill C-4 also amends the Income Tax Act, in order to get rid of unnecessary requirements imposed on labour organizations and labour trusts with regard to filing certain financial information.

As hon. members know, legislative measures are already in place to ensure that unions make that financial information available. Under section 110 of the Canada Labour Code, unions are required to provide financial statements to their members on request and free of charge, which makes these requirements to produce extra reports unnecessary.

The bill being introduced today is consistent with our belief in fair and balanced labour relations. Every other police force in Canada has had the right to engage in collective bargaining for quite some time.

This bill respects that right, while recognizing the particular circumstances of the RCMP as a national police force. It is time for us to give RCMP members and reservists the respect they deserve.

To that end, I am calling on all hon. members to show their support for RCMP members and reservists by voting in favour of this bill.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Laurentides—Labelle.

I thank the House for this opportunity to explain why Bill C-7 is a constructive and responsible development in federal labour relations.

If passed, this legislation would allow RCMP members and reservists to choose whether they wish to be represented by a bargaining agent independent of RCMP management. The key features of the bill include the requirement that the RCMP bargaining agent have as his primary mandate the representation of RCMP members; the exclusion of officers, those of inspector rank and above, from representation; and the designation of the renamed federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board as the administrative tribunal for matters relating to the RCMP bargaining unit as well as grievances related to the collective agreement, should one be affected.

The bill would provide for binding arbitration as the means to resolve impasses, in light of the essential nature of the work performed by the RCMP.

As a standard in federal labour relations, the bill would require that, to be certified as a bargaining agent, an employee organization would need the support of a majority of RCMP members in a single national bargaining unit.

The labour relations regime that this bill would create marks the beginning of a new era in the history of the RCMP. For the first time, RCMP members and reservists would have the same constitutional rights as other Canadians concerning collective bargaining. It is time the RCMP had the opportunity to decide whether to exercise these rights itself.

Our national mounted police have a storied past in Canada in the settlement and development of our country and in keeping peace across the land for almost a century and a half. Since its beginning in 1873, when the act establishing the North-West Mounted Police was introduced in the House by then prime minister John A. Macdonald, the RCMP has been an integral part of our history, indeed our culture. From the 1874 march west from Fort Dufferin in Manitoba, to policing the Klondike gold rush, to the St. Roch's passage through the Northwest Passage, to the vital roles in World War I and World War II, the RCMP has played instrumental roles in Canadian history.

Yet despite their long history, this legislation would be the first time these employees would have the right to freedom of association with respect to collective bargaining. This is a right guaranteed to all Canadians by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is a right the RCMP defends and should also enjoy.

Members of the RCMP work with the goal of serving Canada and protecting Canadians. They are the people who protect the Governor General, the prime minister and other ministers of the crown, visiting royalty and dignitaries, and diplomatic missions. They are our neighbours, who participate in international policing efforts, safeguard the integrity of our borders, and provide counterterrorism and domestic security. They are the Canadians who enforce our federal laws against commercial crime, counterfeiting, drug trafficking, and organized crime.

This legislation would help support those who support us.

The bill also acknowledges the importance of collective bargaining in the development of Canadian society. Since it was officially recognized in 1944, collective bargaining has helped lift many Canadians out of economic insecurity and poverty. Working Canadians in both English and French Canada have a long tradition of organizing themselves to negotiate for better working conditions and more secure lives for themselves and their families. Their struggles and triumphs have been essential to Canada's development.

Our government recognizes that collective bargaining and Canadians' fundamental freedoms are vital to a healthy democracy in which people can pursue their livelihoods with a sense of fairness, security, and professionalism.

We promised to restore fair and balanced laws that acknowledge the importance of unions in Canada. That is what we have done, and that is what this legislation would continue to do.

In December, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour introduced legislation to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. These two bills amended the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, and procedures for the certification and the revocation of certification of bargaining agents that existed before June 16, 2015.

The government has also introduced legislation to repeal Bill C-59, which would have provided the authority to unilaterally override the collective bargaining process. The bill we are considering today, which recognizes the right to collective bargaining for RCMP members and reservists, is another example of our commitment to fair and balanced labour relations.

Fair labour relations need to be available to the brave men and women who put their lives on the line for us. This legislation would do that, and it demonstrates our respect for fundamental liberties and the values at the heart of our democracy.

In 1873, parliamentarians like us voted in this House to establish the North-West Mounted Police. Today, we are here at the beginning of a new chapter in the history of the RCMP. We are considering whether, 143 years later, the men and women in our national police force should have the same fundamental freedoms as so many other Canadians enjoy.

I urge all members to support the bill that would give them those freedoms, and to vote with us to help those who help others.

Canada Labour Code

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-4, which is an exciting first step towards restoring the balance of power between unionized workers and employers.

The bill would amend the Canada Labour Code, the Public Service Labour Relations Act, and the Income Tax Act. The NDP supports all stages of this bill, which will repeal the bad Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. By the way, I want to commend my colleague, the member for Saskatoon West, for her work on this bill. She demonstrated how important it is to repeal these two bad bills.

We had mentioned that these two Conservative bills were unconstitutional and constituted an invasion of privacy, among other things. Nevertheless, the Conservatives pushed these bills, which offered nothing good for Canadian workers.

Bill C-377 amended the Income Tax Act to require that labour organizations and labour trusts provide information returns to the minister for public disclosure. This bill required all union organizations to submit detailed annual financial reports on salaries, revenues, and spending.

The Privacy Commissioner, Daniel Therrien, said that Bill C-377 went too far and constituted an invasion of privacy. The Canadian Bar Association also questioned whether the bill was constitutional and even said that this bill would infringe on freedom of expression and freedom of association provisions. It was, therefore, a very bad bill. Unfortunately, the Conservatives continued to push this bill, even though almost everyone agreed that it was a very bad piece of legislation.

This reminds us of the need to protect collective bargaining and the right of unions to strike. We need to believe in the rights of unions and the important role they play in striking a balance of power between employers and workers. When unions are valued, workers have more rights and there is less pay disparity. A strong union presence has its benefits in a society.

That being said, the Conservatives introduced another bad bill, Bill C-525, which sought to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act. In short, this bad Conservative bill was based on bad American laws that are increasingly geared at doing away with unions.

Under the bill, workers in the same union would be allowed to be members without making a financial contribution to the union's activities and without losing the benefits afforded to them under the collective agreement. That does not make any sense. It goes against union promotion. If fewer people paid union dues, it would upset the balance of power that allows workers to assert their rights.

The purpose of these legislative initiatives is to limit unions' financial capacity by making it easier for workers to opt out of union membership while continuing to take advantage of the benefits afforded to them under their collective agreement. This was yet another bad decision by the Conservatives.

I am truly very happy because the NDP worked so hard that the Liberals followed its lead. I am very proud of my party and our leadership in that regard. I am pleased that the Liberals are on the same page.

In Drummond, I regularly meet people who belong to a union. I recently met two members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. Many workers in my riding are protected by this union. These people told me that they were concerned about what we have seen in recent years, and that is the erosion of workers' rights. They also shared with me what they would like to see happen. For example, they would like workers to continue to have the right to collective bargaining. Unfortunately, the Conservatives imposed working conditions by passing legislation rather than by negotiating with workers.

I believe that the Liberals understand that it is important to negotiate instead. I will come back to that.

Occupational health and safety under the Canada Labour Code has been eroded. Workers are very concerned about occupational health and safety problems and would like to prevent them. We are very proud to see that the Liberals have begun to look at this issue. They are tackling Bill C-59, which was introduced by the Conservatives. We want to repeal the bill, and the Liberal government is going to submit a proposal to the union.

Bill C-59 contained a provision that would abolish employees' right to good faith bargaining by authorizing the employer to unilaterally establish all sick leave conditions. There was a problem related to sick leave, and instead of negotiating the Conservatives imposed a law. Fortunately, the Liberals will negotiate instead. However, they have unfortunately brought forward the same proposal the Conservatives did. We are somewhat disappointed with that.

I also attended several general annual meetings of the union representing workers at the Drummondville penitentiary. I salute all the workers of the Drummondville penitentiary, who do an excellent job. I had the opportunity to visit the institution a number of times. The penitentiary's needs in terms of the rehabilitation of inmates, who want to eventually leave and return to society, are incredible. I am sure that this is the case for all other penitentiaries in Canada. I visited a continuing education class and there were other initiatives as well. I was very pleased to be able to visit them, and I would like to thank them for welcoming me.

I would also like to remind my colleagues that the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie worked very hard in committee in the last Parliament to fight Bill C-377. I think that it is very important to acknowledge his contribution, because he did an incredible job.

Of course we are pleased and delighted that Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 are being repealed. However, we in the NDP will continue to pressure the government to enhance the right to collective bargaining and make working conditions more equitable for all Canadians. We will continue to pressure the government to repeal division 20 of Bill C-59 on sick leave, reinstate the federal minimum wage, and pass the anti-scab legislation introduced yesterday by my colleague from Jonquière. That is a fantastic initiative, and we are all really proud of the collective work done by the NDP when it comes to protecting workers' rights.

I hope the bill passes unanimously in this Parliament, because it will restore the balance of power between workers and employers. I commend the NDP for the collective work it has done, which inspired the Liberal government, and I congratulate the Liberal government for moving in the right direction on this, although there is still work to be done.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the past two decades there has been a steady attack on the rights of working people in Canada. Nowhere has this attack been more evident than on organized labour.

Having spent nearly a decade fighting the attack by the former Conservative government, the NDP welcomes the Liberal government's decision to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. Today, I am proud to stand in the House in support of Bill C-4, a bill that would restore unions' rights to represent their members and to ensure that labour relations are respected.

In the last Parliament, despite public warnings from Canada's Privacy Commissioner, constitutional experts, and the Canadian Bar Association that these bills were very likely to be found unconstitutional, Bill C-377 became law anyway. Bill C-377 placed onerous, redundant, privacy-violating reporting burdens on unions.

Unions were already required to make their financial information available to all their members. While pushed under the guise of transparency, this sweeping bill would have had far-reaching consequences.

For example, anyone who took on a temporary contract with a union and was paid more than $5,000 would see their name disclosed on this database. Likewise, any company engaging in work with a union, such as a small business providing snow removal services, would see their company and the contract details posted publicly, potentially undermining their ability to negotiate other contracts. Let me say that in Ottawa, it snows quite a lot.

By the way, this ideological attack on unions did not come without a price tag. The parliamentary budget officer estimated that the Canada Revenue Agency would need approximately $21 million to establish this electronic database over the first two years and approximately $2.1 million per year to keep the database up to date and to maintain after that. That means repealing Bill C-377 would save Canadian taxpayers and unions millions of dollars per year.

With the passage of Bill C-4, we now would have the opportunity to put that money to better use, to protect Canada's rights as well as access to government services.

Some of my constituents struggle daily to make ends meet, even with a full-time job, some of them with multiple jobs. Others would like to work, but cannot access the workforce for a variety of reasons including their inability to secure affordable, quality child care. The savings from this could fund a number of much needed programs such as social housing, services for seniors, and programs for the most vulnerable.

Like Bill C-377, Bill C-525 was designed to weaken unions in Canada. It was a bill that aimed to solve a problem that in my opinion, did not really exist.

Bill C-525 amended the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employee and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act in order to make it more difficult to certify a union and much easier to decertify one.

Prior to this bill, in order to trigger a union certification vote within the workplace, between 35% and 50% of the employees would have to sign a card indicating that they wish to become members of the union. Bill C-525 would have seen this threshold raised to 40%. Let me make it very clear, prior to Bill C-525, if 35% of employees signed a card, it only triggered a workplace vote, it did not automatically certify a union.

In order to certify a union during the card signing process, more than 50% of employees would still need to have signed a card indicating that they wished to be a member of the union. Their rights were respected and the process was legitimate. For workplaces that were already unionized, Bill C-525 attempted to make decertification of a union easier.

Bill C-525 would lower the threshold required to trigger a decertification vote to 40%. With these measures, it is clear to me that the attempt here was to make it more difficult to trigger certification and for simply ideological reasons.

New Democrats have long supported Canadians' right to freedom of assembly, as protected under the charter, as well as defending the value of the labour movement to working Canadians. It is no coincidence that as unionized rates in Canada have fallen, good-paying, stable, full-time jobs have gone with them. Collective bargaining has played an important role throughout history in ensuring that workers' rights are protected, that workers work in a safe environment, and receive fair pay and benefits for the value they bring to the workforce.

As these stable, secure jobs have been eroded in the workplace, what remain in Canada now are precarious ones, temporary contracts, and part-time work, which often are without benefits and have lower pay. Those are becoming the norm in today's workplaces. Just last year it was found that 52%, or over half, of all workers in Toronto, a major city in Canada, are in these precarious employment situations. Across Canada, these precarious positions are also disproportionately held by visible minorities and new Canadians, adding another barrier to their moving up the socio-economic ladder and achieving financial security for themselves and their families.

For a growing number of precarious workers, making ends meet is becoming increasingly difficult as the cost of living continues to rise and their wages do not keep up. Statistics Canada found that the lowest-earning 20% of Canadian households are now spending over 51% of their take-home pay just to cover essentials. Housing costs alone are now taking up nearly one-third of 20% of Canadian households' paycheques.

The impact of precarious work goes beyond the chequebook. Workers in precarious jobs are nearly twice as likely to report worse mental health than those in secure positions. The impact on people not knowing when their next shift is, of being subject to last-minute scheduling, and not knowing if they will still have jobs next month can lead to acute stress, poor nutrition, and weight gain. Studies have also shown now that workers are becoming trapped in precarious situations instead of moving on to stable, permanent positions. It is increasingly evident that they are stuck, going from contract to contract.

Employment instability, lower wages, and the lack of benefits have far-reaching impacts on Canadians and the economy. Poverty among seniors hit a historic low of under 4% in 1995 and that figure has begun to reverse as workplace pension benefits are eroded and Canadians struggle to save for retirement.

In 2013, poverty rates among seniors increased slightly to 11%. Poverty among seniors disproportionately impacts women, who are now experiencing poverty at the unacceptable rate of 30%. However, do not take the NDP or labour's word for it. Unionization was a key driving force in the past in addressing these issues. Indeed, in a study released just last year, the International Monetary Fund signalled a significant shift in approach, acknowledging that the role unions have historically played in addressing income inequality in society around the globe has been understated.

Research bodies are now showing that declining unionization rates are a significant factor in increasing inequality, especially among developed nations, including Canada. The IMF has now stated that the declining presence of unions has not only weakened the earnings and earnings potential of low- and middle-income earners, but that this has directly led to the rapidly increasing income share of the very highest earners, in particular, corporate managers and shareholders. Unions in Canada play a key role in the financial security of working Canadians and this can no longer be denied.

The Liberal government's decision to repeal these ideological pieces of legislation that would further harm the Canadian labour movement and the financial security of working Canadians is a welcome first step, but there is more to be done. The NDP will continue to push the government to repeal division 20 of Bill C-59 on sick leave, to reinstate a federal minimum wage, and to enact anti-scab legislation and proactive pay equity legislation. New Democrats will push for the repeal of the former Bill C-4, instead of being satisfied with just the current promise to review it. This legislation is also likely to be found unconstitutional and was another example of ideologically driven legislation to undermine fair collective bargaining.

Canadians can be assured that the NDP will continue to fight for workplace rights and against growing income inequality in Canada. Reducing inequality and improving the financial security of everyday working Canadians needs to be a top priority for the government.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-4. As a member who was elected to the House right off the job site and a proud member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, I am very pleased to be speaking to this legislation.

We have heard a lot in the debate. The hon. member was just talking about the executive and the membership. I come from a union where the rank and file were quite upset with Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. They wanted to see them go. They go to their monthly meetings and discuss what kind of spending is going to happen at the executive level, right down to approving the credit card bill, on a monthly basis, of the people who work in the office. I do not think there is any doubt in the minds of most members of my union that they have the opportunity, not just to get the information about how their local union is spending money, but also to have a say in open meetings.

There is a fabricated argument for transparency. For those who need the transparency because it is their dues money being spent, they have access to that information and have had access to that information. In that sense, the bill was a solution looking for a problem.

The executive in my union know well that the power they have when it comes to working with industry, finding jobs for members and making sure that members get fair pay and good benefits for the work they do, does not come from any particular piece of legislation. Obviously, like any other good institution, we need enabling legislation, not persecuting legislation, as I would say Bill C-377 and C-525 are. The power of the executive of my union comes from the membership. It comes from the good work that we do every day. It comes from the quality product that we produce on site. It comes from the extra training that our union provides to our members so that we are out there being the best in the industry. That is why our contractors, like the electrical contractors of Manitoba, have worked quite collaboratively with my local. They know that our union is providing added value to the projects they do, and frankly that we are making them more money. That is what we hear in the dialogue with our contractors.

I am in a tight spot, because of course I do not want to be unparliamentary. I do not want to attribute ulterior motives to any particular party. However, the level of ignorance that one would have to attribute to people making some of the arguments I have heard in the Chamber today, such as ignorance about the way that unions work, about the relationship in the building trades between the unions and contractors, verges on unparliamentary. Therefore, I am feeling in a bit of a tight spot.

I do not want to do any of that, so perhaps I will talk instead about the degree and extent to which the legislation has to be seen not just on its own. If we consider it on its own, then some of the red herrings we have heard today may be effective. However, we need to consider it in the context of a government program that brought in Bill C-377, Bill C-525 and Bill C-59. When railroad workers were going into negotiations with their employer and Canada Post workers were going into negotiations with their employer, they were threatened. Sometimes before they even had the strike vote, they were threatened that they would be legislated back to work.

We need to consider it in the context of a government, some of whose members were making comments such as we heard again today from members from the Conservative Party, criticizing the Rand formula and mandatory union dues. We need to consider it in the context of a government that limited access to EI so that workers were more afraid of challenging their employer, because in the case of a layoff they would not be able to pay their mortgage and feed their families. We need to consider it in the context of a government that refused to talk to the provinces when they asked to increase the Canada pension plan, so that employees who were ready to retire could not leave the workforce, putting downward pressure on wages and blocking opportunities for young people to be promoted within their companies. When we consider it in that context, it is impossible to say that those bills were not meant as an anti-union program. It had very little to do with anything that was coming from the rank and file of labour unions, and everything to do with a government that was working hand in hand with employers to put downward pressure on the working conditions and wages of Canadian workers.

That is part of why these bills were so shameful. It is not just for the content of the bill; we have heard a lot about what was wrong with the content of the bills. They were part of a deliberate and sustained program to make life harder for Canadian workers so that corporations that were already, over that timeframe, making record profits could add a little more to their margins. In a time when corporations were seeing their tax rate go from 28% to 15%, they could squeeze a little bit more out of their workers.

When the economy is working well, we have labour peace. We have labour peace, not when employees are being held under the thumb of their employers, but when they are free to negotiate collectively with their employers and work for fair wages and fair benefits. We know that the union movement, over time and today, contributed to that and contributes to that. We know by the behaviour of many employers, and I dare say even some governments, that if we did not continue to have a strong labour movement in Canada, we would soon lose those gains that were hard fought and hard won over the last 100 or 150 years. That is why we on these benches are concerned to see a legislative environment that allows the union movement to thrive.

We hear sometimes that times were tough and we may have needed some unions to help with workplace conditions, but by and large really, prosperity just spontaneously came out of the industrial revolution. Forgotten in that account is that the organization of workers went hand in hand with that, and it was not until workers were organized that those gains actually came.

I think we need to be careful that we not give credit for the accomplishments of the labour movement to employers that would still be, and we know that they would still be, treating their workers in the way that they treated them in the 19th century. In parts of the world, the very same employers, operating in Canada in some cases, are treating their workers in other parts of the world as if it was the 19th century.

We would have to be very naive indeed to believe that, if there was not the legislative framework and if there was not the strong labour movement that we have had in Canada here, those same employers would not get the idea that maybe they could treat their Canadian workers that way too. I think we need to be very careful that we not attribute the good conditions and the good wages that some Canadian workers continue to enjoy to the benevolence of their employer, but acknowledge that those were gained hard fought and hard won.

I would say that in their more enlightened moments, some employers, like some of the employers that I am glad we have in the electrical industry in Manitoba, know that it has been overall good for them. It has created a customer base. Employees who have disposable incomes can afford their homes and are not worried about their families. They have child care. We can get into all the issues, but largely workers, well paid, well fed, and well housed are more productive, and that is good for Canadian employers.

Again, I think it speaks to the shame of the previous government that it would have sought unsolicited, except maybe by some employers, but certainly not by a groundswell of Canadian workers, to disrupt that partnership that had developed. This is not always easy. We had arrived at a place in Canada where at least some workers, and usually unionized workers, were getting a fair return on the work they did and that employers were benefiting from having those productive workers.

I do not think it is the place of a government to go and intentionally disrupt that. We can talk about what is in the particular context of those bills. I do not think it is very good, but certainly when we look at the larger context, that seems to be the case. It is one of the reasons I ran. I did not think we could tolerate having a government that bent on disrupting that relationship between the labour movement and employers and making sure that workers got their fair share. It is why I can hardly wait to stand in favour of the bill.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in this House and speak to this important bill. As somebody from northern Manitoba, I am proud to come from a union town, Thompson, a proud mining town where we all know clearly how important it is to have a strong group of unions in our community. I am also proud of the role that unionized work has played in my family. My dad was a member of the important union in our community, the steelworkers, as was my grandmother. I know what it means to grow up in a household where union work means families and communities being better off.

I am also proud to rise in this House as a New Democrat. The NDP of course is a party that was born out of a labour movement, and it has always stood up for unions and the rights of Canadian workers. We have proudly voiced our fervent opposition to the former Conservative government's attempt to restrict the power of unions and to make it more difficult for workers to organize.

Unions have been a key player in the fight against inequality in our country, and they have been essential stakeholders in pressuring the government into implementing key policy changes that have benefited our entire society. From workplace safety regulations to the weekend, we must not forget the good that has come from the victories of the labour movement.

It is the labour movement, especially in a world where the middle class and the working class are shrinking in size and influence, that is a necessary counterweight to the corporate greed that has been disproportionately rising in power over the last three decades. Therefore, it will come as no surprise that I rise in this House along with my colleagues to express our support for Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act. We welcome the actions taken by the government and will continue to fight for the rights of working people who were undermined by the previous government for so long.

Bill C-4 would repeal two pieces of legislation, Bills C-377 and C-525, that were pushed through by the Conservative government in the last Parliament. These two anti-union bills were designed to make it harder for Canadians to join unions in the federal sector as well as to fundamentally weaken the power of unions by forcing redundant and unreasonable financial reporting. Both bills have been met with widespread opposition and criticism from many groups, including constitutional and privacy experts, the provinces, Conservative and Liberal senators, Canada's Privacy Commissioner, the Canadian Bar Association, and, of course, hard-working union members and workers across the country.

Bill C-377 forced unions to file information on the Internet about the salaries of their members as well as the unions' labour and political relations and activities. This bill was put forth by the Conservatives under the guise of increased transparency, they said. However, it is crucial to note the fact that unions are already required to make their financial information available to all their members. Furthermore, the NDP as well as the Privacy Commissioner of Canada believe that the bill goes against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It violates the right of freedom of association and the private lives of all who are members of a union. In addition, Bill C-377 would cost Canadian taxpayers an estimated $21 million just to establish an electronic database needed to store this information about union members, and it would cost the Canadian public $2.1 million each year after that. By repealing this piece of legislation, it goes without saying that both the Government of Canada as well as unions themselves would be able to save millions of dollars annually.

Bill C-525 proposed to drastically change the process through which unions under federal jurisdiction become certified. The bill increased the number of membership cards needed to certify a union and eliminated the possibility of forming a union through a majority card check. Prior to this legislation, a union was automatically certified if more than 50% of its employees signed a card indicating that they wanted to be part of a union. However, Bill C-525 outlawed this process. Because of this, the bill makes it harder for workers to unionize while making it easier for unions to be decertified. As such, Bill C-525 leaves workers vulnerable to intimidation by employers or third party members.

Yes, Bill C-4 would be a step in the right direction, but there is still much work to be done to ensure the rights of workers and improve working conditions for all Canadians.

Now I want to acknowledge the fundamental role that unions play in Canadian society through the protection of Canadian workers, the promotion of health and safety in our workplaces, and the role they play as the collective democratic voice for working people. I want to stress the fundamental importance of unions in providing education about workers' rights and standing up against workplace bullying and harassment.

Unions have been trailblazers when it comes to ending all forms of discrimination. They have been at the forefront of fighting for women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and the rights of racialized and indigenous peoples. They contribute to democracy by giving workers collective bargaining power, thereby lowering inequality in our country.

Furthermore, a new study done by the International Monetary Fund, perhaps an unusual source for such information, indicates how increases in income inequality can be directly linked to the decline of rates of unionization. This is particularly shocking considering the IMF has actually contributed to decreased levels of unionization itself.

Moreover, a decline in unionization correlates to weaker employment laws, leaving workers vulnerable in terms of their rights and more open to exploitation. Unionization helps to equalize the distribution of wages. Higher wages negotiated by unions inject an additional $786 million into the Canadian economy each year. On average, the hourly wage of a unionized worker is $5 higher than that of a non-unionized worker. For women, that difference goes up to $6.65 an hour. Because of this, it is paramount that the importance of unions be recognized and respected accordingly.

As previously expressed, Bill C-4 is a good first step, but New Democrats are disappointed that some major actions are missing from this bill. The NDP will continue to push the government to restore good faith bargaining with public service workers, starting the repeal of division 20 of the Conservative omnibus budget bill, Bill C-59, that attacks a worker's right to sick days.

Furthermore, New Democrats call upon the government to reinstate a federal minimum wage and to adopt anti-scab and proactive pay equity legislation immediately. The NDP will also push the government to repeal former Bill C-4 rather than just review it. This contentious legislation has been called unconstitutional, as pointed out by many, and is said to stack the deck in the government's favour by undermining fair collective bargaining.

I wish to thank all the workers, union members, labour activists, and advocates who made the repeal of these pieces of anti-union legislation possible. As a member of Parliament for the NDP, as well as the critic for jobs, employment and workplace development, it is important for me to show solidarity for our union brothers and sisters.

All those who believe that unionization is outdated need only look at how productivity gains have been divided between labour and capital over the past 30 years or so. Nowadays, capital compensation is completely out of proportion with performance, compared to the low pay labour receives. Speculation is valued more than the production of goods and services. This trend has increased in proportion with the decrease in the rate of unionization in society.

As I reiterate my support for this bill, I would like to send a clear message to the government. The structural problems that the middle class and workers in Canada are facing go beyond the scope of this bill. The fight against inequality requires a structural review of government operations, and the country is counting on the new government to do just that.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act, and the Income Tax Act. This bill represents an important effort to reverse the anti-union and anti-worker legislation that was ushered through Parliament by the previous Conservative government.

The NDP worked tirelessly to oppose Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 at every step of the way, so it should come as no surprise that our party is in full support of repealing these bills.

While I welcome the changes tabled by the government as a good first step, there is so much more to do for workers' rights and conditions. New Democrats are calling on the government to reinstate a federal minimum wage, to adopt anti-scab legislation, and to implement proactive pay equity legislation, as per the NDP motion passed in this place just a few days ago. The NDP is also calling on the government to restore good-faith bargaining with our public service workers by repealing Division 20 of Bill C-59, related to sick days.

After a decade of Conservative darkness, I am encouraged to see the Liberal government taking the first steps to restore some of the rights of working people that were under attack under the previous government.

As the member of Parliament for Essex, I am determined to be a strong voice for working people both in my home riding and across Canada. The struggle of working people in Canada for unionization and their gains have benefited all Canadians. The fight of unions for a fair workplace for all workers in our country began with the fight in 1872 to have a shorter workday, but it has included changes to maternity and parental leave, the right to a safe workplace, and more.

My riding has proud union members working in auto manufacturing, health care, long-term care, education, municipalities, trades, retail, and the public sector. The benefits of being a unionized worker include a legally binding contract that guarantees working conditions, job security, paid holidays, wages, benefits, health and safety, and more.

On average, unionized workers earn $5 more per hour than non-unionized workers. For women, the difference is $6.65 an hour. Higher wages negotiated by unions inject an additional $786 million into the Canadian economy each week.

Unions also provide great support for communities. In my riding of Essex, unionized workers give generously and selflessly to the United Way and other non-profit organizations, which has made a vast difference in the lives of people in all of our communities, not just in the lives of union members. Gaps that exist due to government cuts and program reductions are picked up by caring union members who continue to dig deep into their pockets, even when they are suffering in their own industries.

I spent much of the last year knocking on doors and talking with people from every community in my riding of Essex. Their stories and struggles were the struggles of all hard-working Canadians: high unemployment through no fault of their own, and in our region, one of the highest unemployment rates in Canada, with many still ineligible for EI.

Workers are struggling to make ends meet. Our communities are filled with the working poor, who are left no choice but to work in minimum-wage jobs and part-time or casual jobs, often piecing together two or three different jobs just to make ends meet. Sadly, this is a growing reality across Canada. Statistics tell us that 60% of all new Canadian jobs are considered precarious, part-time, temporary, contract-based, freelance, and self-employed positions. These workers are taxi drivers, contract teachers, office cleaners, and clerks. They often have no workplace pension, no job benefits, and no job security.

As parliamentarians, it is our responsibility to work together and advocate for solutions that will improve the lives of all Canadians. Instead, in the previous Parliament, the Conservatives pushed through legislation, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, designed to weaken unions and make it more difficult for Canadians in federally regulated workplaces to join a union.

These two bills moved through Parliament as private member's bills, although it was crystal clear that these were government-led initiatives. Even now, the Conservatives are threatening to use their power in the Senate to block legislation that would restore labour rights. Canadians are fed up with the unelected, unaccountable, under-investigation Senate. There is no place in our democracy for these senators to upend the work done by Canadians' representatives here in this place.

Bill C-377 was an unnecessary, discriminatory law designed to impose onerous and absurdly detailed reporting requirements on unions. Guised as a move to improve transparency, those who actually know how union locals operate also know that Bill C-377 had absolutely nothing to do with transparency. As a union member, I know the direction of the union members' funds and how they are determined, in fact, by the membership. Transparency between union members and their elected governing executives is never an issue. Members are always able to access the financial disclosure of their allocation of dues. Not a penny is spent that is not reported to the membership.

Reporting requirements in Bill C-377 would bog down unions in so much red tape that it would severely interfere with their ability to serve their membership. According to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, this bill went against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by violating Canadians' right to the freedom of association and privacy rights of those who work for a union.

Bill C-377 would also cost millions of dollars to implement. The parliamentary budget officer estimated it would cost more than $2.4 million allocated by the Canada Revenue Agency. In fact, it was estimated that it would cost the CRA approximately $21 million to establish the electronic database over the first two years, and approximately $2.1 million in each subsequent year. Repealing the contents of Bill C-377 would save millions of dollars for both the government and the unions, and, as I previously mentioned, would continue the critical support that unionized workers provide for their communities where government gaps exist.

Bill C-4, the government bill before us today, also seeks to repeal Bill C-525, another bill introduced by a Conservative backbencher and ushered through by a Conservative government intent on attacking the labour movement. Bill C-525 fundamentally changed the process for certifying or decertifying a union under federal jurisdiction, essentially making it harder to certify a union and easier to decertify. It should come as no surprise that workers would want to unionize. As I outlined earlier, unionized jobs tend to have higher wages, better benefits, and better working conditions than non-unionized jobs. Bill C-525 would impact all federally regulated workers seeking to certify or decertify as a union. Workers under this jurisdiction include the energy sector, airline sector, telecommunications, rail, and postal workers.

For these federally regulated workers, to certify as a unionized workforce it was previously the case that a union was automatically certified if more than 50% of employees sign a card indicating they wish to be a member of a union. It is called the “card check system”. If between 35% and 50% of employees sign a card, a vote is triggered to ask employees if they wish to be unionized. Bill C-525 changed all this by outlawing the card check model and replacing it with a two-step process. First, the card-signing process where the percentage of signed cards required to trigger a vote increased from 35% to 40%. The second step included a government supervised vote. These changes were fundamentally unfair and put workers wanting to unionize at a serious disadvantage.

Bills C-377 and C-525 were not in the best interests of workers. Instead, they were designed to further attack and erode the labour movement in Canada. New Democrats will always stand for the interests of working Canadians. I am proud of how our party provided strong and effective leadership in opposing these bills in the House, at committee, and in the media. Today's legislation to repeal Bills C-377 and C-525 is a step in the right direction. I am also proud of our successful NDP motion this week calling for immediate action on pay equity. Let us also move forward on restoring and enhancing collective bargaining rights as well as fairer working conditions for all Canadians.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Essex.

I am pleased to rise in the House to debate Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act. First of all, I would like to indicate that I will be supporting this bill. The NDP strongly opposed the previous Conservative government's attempt to limit the rights of unions and change the rules governing labour relations.

This bill reflects one of the promises made by the NDP during the election campaign. Although I support this bill, I must mention how much work still needs to be done with regard to workers' rights and their working conditions.

The bill restores and respects workers' rights. Like thousands of other people in my riding of Jonquière, I am very proud to have been a part of the labour movement. I was the president of my local chapter for eight years, and I managed it well.

Since we started debating Bill C-4, I cannot help but feel a twinge of sadness about many of the comments I have heard here in the House. For eight years, I was directly accountable to my members at meetings and even at my workplace. I had to deal with some very sensitive issues with my members and defend both long-time and new employees.

At union meetings we had a duty to present our financial statements to members. The same goes for all locals, in all unions. The members themselves must decide whether they agree with the spending their union is doing within their own organization. We must be transparent and accountable to our members. That is enshrined in all of our laws, and all unions must comply.

Over those eight years, I did so and we even implemented an audit system, which also exists in all unions. Our union has an officer to look over all the books and statements. I must say that when there is an anomaly, for example, if an invoice is missing or if an expenditure was left out or made by mistake, we are set straight and we are always accountable to this movement and our members.

Unions and their members do not need a government telling them what to do because they already have their regulations. They already have their own rules, rules that the members voted on either in meetings or in committees that are themselves elected by the members. Transparency is already part of the process, and leaders are accountable to union members every step of the way.

If a worker finds fault with the union's internal processes or the representatives, there is a great organization to handle that: the Canada Industrial Relations Board, the CIRB. The board is there for those people. It is impartial, and it exists to protect workers who feel their rights have been violated. There is even a complaints process. We do not need laws like the ones the Conservatives brought in to dictate how unions should be organized.

The union movement is very happy about Bill C-4, which would repeal the previous government's unfair bills C-377 and C-525. The New Democrats opposed those bills at every stage in the process because they were useless and irresponsible legislative measures that made a mockery of the very ideas of equality and fairness in negotiations between the parties and that undermined people's basic right to free collective bargaining.

It was a partisan assault on the men and women who go to work every day to provide for their families. Those same people voted to elect representatives to the House of Commons to defend their interests.

I was very disappointed that the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent reiterated his support for his party's bills, when he was not even a member for the party at that time.

Blaming the unions for his party's defeat is a little like blaming the groundhog for a longer winter. Ultimately, the workers spoke, and the Conservatives did not have their support, essentially because the Conservatives trampled all over workers' rights.

I would like to provide some direction for my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, since he seems to have lost his way somewhere between Quebec City and Ottawa.

The World Bank found that a high rate of unionization led to greater income equality, lower unemployment and inflation, higher productivity, and a quicker response to economic downturns. I think our economy could use a good boost right about now.

The Conservatives put all their eggs in one basket and we are seeing the consequences of that today. Unfortunately, people often forget what the union movement has done for workers: minimum wage, paid overtime, occupational safety standards, parental and maternity leave, paid vacation, and protection from discrimination and sexual harassment.

Just yesterday, we voted for a motion on pay equity moved by the NDP. I thank all the parties who supported the motion. I am still scratching my head about the fact that the Conservatives refused to support our motion, and especially that their leader refused to support our motion, considering that until recently she was the minister of status of women.

Bill C-4 is an excellent first step. However, there is still a lot of work to be done to fix past mistakes, such as the attack on sick leave introduced in the omnibus Bill C-59.

We also have to take a look at what we can improve, beyond the repairs that need to be made because of the Conservatives' bad decisions. It is high time that we modernized some of the outdated provisions of the Canada Labour Code.

It has been almost 60 years since the Canada Labour Code was overhauled. I join with my colleague from Saskatoon West in highlighting the importance of following up on the recommendations of the report released after the 2006 review of the Canada Labour Code.

That follow-up is already overdue. A good number of those recommendations and the vital updates would benefit many workers. For example, take the issues of workplace safety and preventive withdrawal for pregnant women. In Quebec, under the CSST regulations, once women are 26 weeks pregnant they are entitled to preventive withdrawal for their protection and that of their foetus. There is no such provision in the Canada Labour Code. Thus, we still have far to go. We must do more to improve working conditions for our women, our future mothers, and for all workers. Every worker deserves to be protected.

Some workers have a very hard time putting food on the table every day. Therefore, we urge the government to restore the federal minimum wage, to pass anti-scab legislation and to fight for greater pay equity.

I am pleased to have had this time and the opportunity to debate this bill, because the rights of workers across Canada have been violated by the Conservatives' actions.

Unions have many procedures, bylaws and rules. Consequently, this whole movement is already well established.

I see that my time is up, but I could talk a long time about this subject.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the voters from the Richmond Centre electoral district, who have once again placed their trust in me to be their representative. This is the third time that I have been fortunate to be elected and it is always a privilege to speak on behalf of my constituents, previously for the Richmond electoral district and today for Richmond Centre.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my supporters and volunteers in Richmond and, most important, my husband Enoch. His encouragement, support, and sacrifice have made my endeavours in Ottawa possible.

At around 8 p.m. on election day, one of the major television networks declared my defeat and, hence, my early retirement. It took another couple of hours for Elections Canada to count the rest of the ballots and, fortunately, I am here today to talk about it.

That very evening, one of my constituents sent me a line by a famous author, Mark Twain. It states, “...the report of my death was an exaggeration...”. Here I am today to tell my constituents that I will be holding the Liberal government to account as part of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

I would like to comment on the throne speech and discuss some of the issues I have heard in my conversations with many of my constituents from Richmond Centre.

I have been assigned the role of critic for small business. In the Richmond Centre electoral district, small businesses are a huge engine of job creation. Whether it is in top in the world restaurants, tourism, or import and export businesses, my riding is full of people who are either owners or employees of such businesses.

International trade, especially with Pacific Rim countries, is of major economic concern to my constituents because they are right in the Pacific gateway of the nation. This is why proceeding with the trans-Pacific partnership, the TPP, and continuing to implement free trade agreements is economically beneficial. Of note was the free trade agreement that our Conservative government signed with South Korea, which will stimulate economic activity for both countries and will create jobs in the Vancouver area and across Canada.

Equally important is maintaining a low-tax burden for small businesses. The Conservative government, through Bill C-59 in the last Parliament, reduced the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%, to be phased in over the next four years. I call on the new Liberal government to maintain this prudent measure, which will strengthen the job-creating small business sector.

Let us now look at the throne speech again to see if it talked about business. How many times did we see the word “business” in the throne speech? None; zero. How many times did we see the word “employment” in the throne speech? Only once, in reference to the employment insurance system, when people receive benefits for not working, whether through losing their jobs, sickness benefits, or maternity leave.

Speaking of employment insurance, we will also be watching very carefully the impact of increased payroll taxes on small businesses, which create jobs. Increased payroll taxes represent a real cost to businesses. Lower costs will create an environment for more jobs.

The throne speech does not mention how the private sector will be supported, whether with lower taxes, a reduction in red tape, training, or other measures that will encourage job creation and economic activity.

Indeed, it is disturbing to see the government going in the exact opposite direction, where a large government will be causing large deficits, large deficits will accumulate large debts, and large debts will increase the interest and expenses the government will have to pay. We all know who pays the government's bills. It is the taxpayer who will be paying for these upcoming Liberal deficits. This upsets a lot of people.

Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her analysis of this extremely technical bill. She painted a very good picture of the problems we might face if we pass this bill hastily, particularly since no amendments were agreed to in committee.

I would also like to point out that this bill will be retroactive. It seems to me that we are seeing things that we have never seen before. The government seems to be setting a precedent with Bill C-59, which retroactively authorizes the destruction of the gun registry so that it will not be subject to the Access to Information Act. I am very concerned about the fact that the government realized something was illegal and chose to fix things by retroactively amending legislation. Consider a criminal who commits an offence: he cannot go back in time and change the law to make what he did legal.

I would like the member to comment on that.

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to begin, and given that this bill is subject to the latest in a long line of time allocation motions, I will say that it is my great pleasure to share my speaking time with my very esteemed colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. I know that she will speak intelligently and will represent her constituents very well.

For a bill that is going to cause all sorts of disruptions and, most importantly, result in absolutely unbelievable duplication, it is scandalous that, even if we could not persuade our Conservative colleagues, we do not have enough time to alert the Canadian public as a whole to the dangers associated with the undercurrents of racism, intolerance, extreme rhetoric and incoherence that are the hallmark of this government when it tries to deal with genuine and serious problems to which we need to find an answer. That answer must not amount to legal and legislative fiddling that unfortunately is likely to lead to very harmful consequences, especially for the victims, as we told this government at every stage of this bill, and as a majority of the witnesses said at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Unfortunately, with its electioneering, shamefully partisan and frankly vote-buying approach, the government is trying to use the legislative tools that are entirely under its control to buy its re-election on the backs of hundreds if not thousands of victims all across Canada.

This is truly depressing. No woman in this country should have to suffer violence or the kind of life that forced or early marriage imposes. In fact, this country we are so proud of, the country willed to us by our ancestors, has worked very hard to promote equality of status between men and women. Introducing this bill, which is quite simply a mess, if we go by the title, is no way to preserve that heritage. I will take the liberty of reading the short title we know so well by now, which gives the impression we are returning to ancient times, to the biblical times of the Old Testament: Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act. Words are our chief tool, as legislators, for taking action in our society and ensuring that our constituents live in the best possible conditions. The government, however, is tossing around loaded terms whose effect is to marginalize a large segment of our population. When shame is heaped on their head by the opposition, they should be ashamed. The opposition was not being unfair; quite the contrary. In the work done in committee, we were very reasonable and proposed only two amendments. In spite of the opinion of the large majority of all 24 witnesses, the government refused even to seriously consider thinking about the two amendments presented by the New Democratic Party.

Despite this sensationalism, the problem has not been resolved—quite the opposite. The minister finally made a proposal through the unelected, illegitimate Senate. Nonetheless, the minister should have committed to holding full and serious consultations on the matter.

One of the concerns expressed by all the witnesses was that in reality, the government is legislating about something we do not fully understand. We do not know the full extent of this phenomenon and there are no reliable statistics. The government is legislating blind and repeating provisions that already exist in the Criminal Code. In other words, it is simply reiterating and repeating legal provisions that prohibit forced marriages and polygamy, among other things. We therefore find ourselves watching the government engage in a huge marketing campaign to show how tough it can be on those who abuse the most vulnerable in our society. However, in reality, those who are really exploiting these oppressed people and victims of forced marriage are the Conservatives when they introduce this type of bill.

In fact, the thing that infuriates me is that this is a recent stunt by the Conservatives. Very modestly, in four years in the House, I have been a member of four different committees. I have seen every trick the Conservatives throw at us to push their agenda through. A very recent practice that is rather odd is that when members from the opposition parties propose amendments in committee, the Conservatives have speaking notes prepared ahead of time to justify their unjustifiable positions.

Having experienced that during the study on Bill C-59, the budget implementation bill, I have to say that we proposed a very reasonable number of amendments. There were times when the governing party's justifications for rejecting amendments bordered on ludicrous. Our amendments were aligned with the concerns and requests we heard from witnesses during the committee's work.

For the benefit of all members of the House, I would like to remind everyone of what the vast majority of the 24 witnesses who spoke to this bill said. They—and this includes pro-Conservative witnesses—expressed serious reservations about the short title, for one thing. It is an insult that goes back to antiquity. It would have been more appropriate in the days of the Romans and the Greeks than it is today. The Conservatives also had reservations about the minimum age of consent, the definition of polygamy, penalties for minors and women and issues related to the defence of provocation.

There comes a time when, faced with a vast majority of opinions on a great many aspects of a bill, one makes concessions and tries to find a way to agree on certain aspects to make it work.

I think that this tired and dying government has reached its limit. The Conservatives are so keen on proving their legitimacy that they are refusing to listen to any opinion that differs from their speeches, which have been pre-formatted by the advisors in short pants in the Prime Minister's Office. These advisors are imposing opinions on people who, if they did not belong to the Conservative Party, would likely be able to express themselves in a very reasonable way. However, they gave up all of their freedom, and apparently their duty to their constituents as well, in order to pander to voters. At election time, they want to be able to tell people to look at how they solved the problems of barbaric cultural practices that are becoming increasingly common in Canada because of immigration and are threatening our way of life.

That is really shameful, and that is why all of my NDP colleagues and I will be voting against this bill.

Veterans Affairs

[Erin O'Toole, Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Pickering—Scarborough East for his support for Bill C-59, which passed this House yesterday.

That bill includes the new retirement income security benefit for veterans over 65, the critical injury benefit, the family caregiver relief benefit, all new benefits to help veterans and their families. This is on top of our expansion of the permanent impairment allowance, reserve force fairness, and the hiring of tactical teams of caseworkers to deploy across the country.

The sad reality is that even though the parliamentary committee fully recommended many of these new benefits, the New Democrats and the Liberals voted against them.

Justice

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I assume that is why the government is going to grant a pardon, with Bill C-59, for acts that were allegedly legal. In any case, it is a little hard to understand and to follow.

The Conservatives have mastered the art of taking Canadians for fools, and with just a few days left in this parliamentary session, they are introducing new bills that have no hope of being passed solely for electioneering purposes, including the bill on impaired driving and the bill on victims rights in the military justice system.

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate so far. It is interesting that in a debate like this we have learned, and it is a great revelation, that commodity prices go up and down.

I am very honoured to provide my input on Bill C-59, economic action plan 2015. Our government has worked hard, focusing on its commitment to the priorities of Canadians: jobs, economic stability, growth, and long-term prosperity.

By balancing the budget, we can keep our focus on lower taxes to help families and hard-working Canadians. There is something colleagues on the other side did not hear about or forgot about, and that is the fact that the overall federal tax burden is now at its lowest level in more than 50 years.

Our government understands the growing financial pressure parents are facing today. That is why we have enhanced the universal child care benefit. We call it a universal child care benefit because it will be available to all Canadian families with children under the age of 18, regardless of their income or the type of child care they choose.

We first introduced the universal child care benefit, or UCCB, in 2006. Today it provides direct support to over 1.6 million families with over two million young children.

Let me explain how the UCCB works, how much it provides, and how we are enhancing it. Currently the UCCB provides $100 per month for each child under the age of six. We are proposing to increase the amount to $160 per month, which comes to about $2,000 per year for each preschooler. We also propose to expand the reach of this benefit to include children ages six to 17. Families would receive $60 per month for each child in this age group, which would amount to $720 per year.

Once we receive parliamentary approval, the new benefit amounts would take effect retroactively to January 1, 2015. This is great news for many families across the country, including over 20,000 families in the riding I proudly represent, Mississauga East—Cooksville.

I am pleased to also see important improvements for veterans through the veterans services included in this bill. I would like to thank the Minister of Veterans Affairs for taking a major step toward implementing the veterans affairs committee's recommendations in our review of the new veterans charter last year.

Bill C-59 has three new benefits to fill gaps that were identified in veterans services. The retirement income security benefit would provide disabled veterans with a monthly income support payment, beginning at age 65, on top of their existing pension payments to make sure that injured veterans have financial security later in life.

The critical injury benefit would provide a $70,000 tax-free award for Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans who experience a sudden and severe injury in the line of duty. This recognizes the hardship armed forces members experience as they recover from a traumatic incident.

The next one is the family caregiver relief benefit, which would provide disabled veterans with $7,000 tax free per year for caregivers, often a spouse or other family member, to use in any way that helps them overcome some of the challenges of caregiver fatigue.

I guess I have to wrap up. I would encourage every member in this House to support this bill.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough Southwest.

Today, my speech is going to be very long. I already know that I will be cut short. I want to take the time to thank my constituents, the men and women who were active in my riding, who came to the office and to whom we provided services. I would also like to thank all the people who work in this place, from the pages to the maintenance workers who work through the night to all the food services people and you, Mr. Speaker, as well as the other two Speakers.

Today, I join my colleagues in speaking to the 2015 budget implementation bill. I have many concerns and questions about this bill that we are debating with just a few days left before the end of the parliamentary session. Recently, we have been going over the record of this past year, and I have been thinking about my record in my first term of office.

I want to digress for a moment and talk about how the government is using undemocratic processes to pass this bill. I got into politics because I care about our laws and our democratic process. I became a legislator in 2011 to serve the interests of the people of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. However, I have been on Parliament Hill for four years, and it has become clear that the party in power has no respect for this country's democratic processes.

For example, last week the Conservatives issued their 100th gag order since they took power, which is a Canadian record. This undermines the right of Canadians and their elected representatives to democratically debate important legislation.

In addition, we are now debating the seventh consecutive omnibus bill. As the election approaches, this government is trying to rush through hundreds of changes without subjecting them to studies or oversight. However, Canadians are not stupid. In other years this was done because as summer approached we reached the end of the sitting, but we get omnibus bills like this one every year.

The bill is 150 pages long and contains 270 provisions, many of which amend laws that have nothing to do with a budget. They give gifts to the government's friends and the wealthiest members of our society. When the bill was before committee, the government was unreasonable and ignored all of the opposition's amendments, including the very sensible amendments proposed by the NDP.

I would therefore like to say that I will be voting against Bill C-59 because of both its content and the undemocratic process that the Conservatives once again used to push this bill through Parliament. The people of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles are fed up with this political manoeuvring. We can already tell that a desire for change is sweeping the country.

On a side note, I would like to tell a little story that I am sure my colleagues will find perplexing. It is a tradition in Canada for the finance minister to buy a new pair of shoes to wear when tabling the budget. This year, the minister chose to buy shoes that were made in the United States. That image calls to mind the thousands of jobs that have been lost in Canada's manufacturing sector. It is not surprising that the Canadian economy is in such bad shape when the Conservatives' symbol of job creation involves buying the product from another country instead of creating well-paid jobs in Canada.

Getting back to business, I would like to share with the House some of my concerns with this bill. I would like to talk about eight elements that the government has neglected but that matter very much to my constituents: the fact that the Conservatives have not done anything about excessive bank fees; the lack of consideration for the decline of French in minority communities outside Quebec; the dismemberment of CBC/Radio-Canada; the growing burden on families and women, particularly those without access to affordable daycare; the end of home mail delivery by Canada Post; the pillaging of employment insurance; poor statistics on employment in Canada; and the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds.

Coming back to the subject of bank fees, the government could have used budget 2015 as an opportunity to enhance protections for consumers and help families who are struggling with excessive bank fees. This is yet another missed opportunity. Canada currently has no regulations to limit bank fees. That is not right. The banks are raking in record profits, while Canadians are having a hard time making ends meet. There are numerous measures that could have been useful: guaranteeing free paper bills, capping credit card interest rates and putting an end to “pay-to-pay”, for example.

I encourage the Minister of Finance to carefully read my bill, Bill C-663, which proposes many positive measures for the pocketbooks of Canadians. For example, it proposes requiring banks to issue an annual report that shows all fees charged to customers, capping NSF fees, and giving customers a grace period before charging them for an NSF cheque. NSF fees give people bad credit ratings. The government has a duty to protect consumers through regulations and strong legislative measures.

When it comes to the Francophonie and the French language, I was extremely disappointed in this bill. In 2015 I became the official opposition Francophonie critic. I will take a moment to illustrate how disengaged this government is when it comes to its obligations under the Official Languages Act and the Canadian Constitution. The government does not seem to care that a number of francophone minority communities are at risk of losing more and more services provided in French by federal institutions. The Francophonie, linguistic duality and official languages are not even mentioned in the budget. How shameful.

We also see that there is nothing to protect the CBC, which is currently going through one of the biggest crises in its history. With the Conservatives making cuts to the tune of $115 million in three years, the effects are already being felt across Canada. There have been cuts to the length of the newscasts, the number of journalists abroad, sports coverage and documentaries. More important still is the death by a thousand cuts of the local productions that were extremely important to the francophone minority communities. The CBC's French service has been hard hit. Ten positions were cut in Acadia, 15 positions were cut in Ontario and 16 positions were cut in the western provinces.

The NDP is the only party that is promising to cancel the $115 million in cuts to our public broadcaster and give it stable, predictable, multi-year funding. We want to maintain the vitality and development of our francophone communities across the country.

With regard to the status of women, I am bringing my perspective to this debate as a mother and also as the former president of the Regroupement des groupes de femmes de la région de la Capitale-Nationale in Quebec City. I am disappointed that there are no measures in this bill to create new child care spaces. What happened to the child care spaces the Conservatives promised? They evaporated, much like the Conservatives' other promises. Many experts have said that the Conservatives' income splitting policy could encourage a disproportionate number of women to leave the workforce or not enter it at all. The NDP wants to promote employability, leadership and entrepreneurship among women, not return to the past.

I would like to close by saying that I condemn the government's tactic of dipping into the employment insurance fund to balance the budget. It does not make any sense that fewer and fewer people who contribute to the employment insurance fund are able to access it when they need it most. The NDP will immediately do away with the federal government's plan to raise the retirement age to 67. When it forms the next government, the NDP will reintroduce the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds, which was eliminated by this Conservative government.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to stand today to speak on Bill C-59, the implementation of budget 2015. It is a budget that benefits all Canadians by creating jobs, giving benefits to families, and providing funding for communities.

In the time that I have today, I would like to focus on the benefits that this budget would bring to Kootenay—Columbia.

Small business is a significant driver in the Kootenays. Tourism forms an important part of the riding. World-class ski resorts in Revelstoke, Golden, Panorama, Kimberley, and Fernie employ thousands of people each year so that people from around the world can come and enjoy great snow.

Every coffee outlet, every gift shop, and many more would benefit from the reduction in the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%. This would put an estimated $2.3 billion back into the pockets of those people who are the engine of the Canadian economy. It would provide small business owners with the opportunity to invest and to continue to grow their businesses, which in turn would benefit the communities where they live.

Our Conservative government has also reaffirmed the small business job credit, which would lower business payroll taxes by 15% for the next two years.

Unlike the Liberals and the NDP, we believe that lowering taxes for business is beneficial for all, as it drives the economy. In fact, the NDP has voted against every small business tax cut since 2006. The NDP would implement the $15 minimum wage, which would be devastating for small business. To top it off, the NDP would implement a job-killing payroll tax increase. The Liberals' answer: well, budgets just balance themselves. Tell that to any business owner.

Companies like Canfor and Louisiana-Pacific and the Interior Lumber Manufacturers Association would benefit from the forest innovation fund and the expanding market opportunities program. A lot can be learned from those in the forestry industry. They were able to manage a renewable resource and keep it viable for centuries. However, they also need to be able to market their timber, and programs like these allow them to stay with the times in an ever-evolving global market.

What is the answer from the Liberals and NDP? Raise corporate taxes and let them spend that money, because they know best.

Companies like Teck Resources, Joy Global, Finning, and many others will benefit from the reformed skills training system, which will align the curricula of post-secondary education institutions with the needs of employers through an investment of $65 million over four years. Post-secondary institutes such as the College of the Rockies and Selkirk College will be able to work with companies to provide courses that will open up opportunities for students in many fields, such as heavy-duty mechanics, welders, electricians, wood forest operations, and many more.

Our Conservative government will continue to work with the provinces to break down internal trade so that goods within Canada can flow freely. In my riding of Kootenay—Columbia, the wine industry and other businesses will benefit. Recently the Minister of Industry announced that he had met with all 13 provincial and territorial counterparts to have an internal trade agreement in place by 2016.

When it comes to families, our government believes that moms and dads should be able to decide what they do with their money and how they save it. That is why we increased the allowable annual contribution to a tax-free savings account to $10,000 annually. One-third of Canadians, approximately 11 million Canadians, have contributed to tax-free savings accounts.

Let us think about that for a minute. There are 11 million Canadians contributing to a TFSA, and what is the answer from the opposition parties? They will get rid of it.

That would mean that one-third of Canadians would have to find a different way to invest their money because what the opposition really wants to do is raise taxes on hard-working Canadian families.

Another opportunity our government is providing is reducing the minimum withdrawal factors for RRIFS for those over the age of 71. It would provide them with the opportunity to extend their retirement savings.

Moms and dads across our country work hard to provide for their families, and that is why such things as income splitting and the universal child care benefit, which were introduced by our government, are so beneficial. The opposition parties have said they would get rid of these two benefits. Perhaps they would like to tell that to those who hold down the most underrated and lowest-paid positions in all of Canada. Who are they? They are the parents who choose to stay home and raise their children.

I personally do not think there is enough money that could be paid for this position. However, I know income splitting and the UCCB put a little more money into the pockets of those families to save or spend as they choose, and that is the way it should be.

Kootenay—Columbia boasts four of the most magnificent national parks in Canada. Yoho National Park has 28 mountain peaks over 3,000 metres in height. It has Takakkaw Falls, with a free fall of 254 metres, the third-highest waterfall in Canada. There are over 400 kilometres of hiking trails there, spiral tunnels that are an engineering marvel, and much more.

Kootenay National Park has vast valleys and rock formations such Marble Canyon, Numa Falls, and Sinclair Canyon. The world-famous Radium Hot Springs are found there as well..

Glacier National Park has awe-inspiring mountain peaks and glaciers. A stop at Rogers Pass is jaw-dropping. Of course, there is the final link in our national rail line that connected Canada as a nation.

Finally, Mount Revelstoke National Park comes alive in late August when wildflowers abound.

The staff at Parks Canada do an amazing job at providing a great visitor experience. I was very pleased to see that budget 2015 dedicated $2.8 billion to national parks and national historic sites. Improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway, hiking trails, and camping facilities, to name a few, will continue to draw people from around the world to our Canadian treasures.

The security of Canada is paramount, and I am proud of our military and police for their ability to promote and protect our values at home or wherever they may be deployed. Our Conservative government will continue to provide our military and police with the tools they need to combat terrorism and aid countries like Ukraine in fighting for their sovereignty.

Also, let us not forget about the valuable contributions of our DART teams, which deploy all over the world to aid after disaster has struck. The most recent example is deployment of DART to Nepal, for which I would like commend Lieutenant-Commander Kelly Williamson, RCN, the spouse of the member of Parliament for New Brunswick Southwest, for her leadership role in the recent deployment.

Whether it is in combat, peacekeeping, or disaster relief, our military is regarded as one of the best in the world.

Now let us look at the record of the Liberals. First they cut funding to the military to the point of non-existence. Then, when they decided to deploy our men and women to Afghanistan, they had the great idea of sending them in green combat fatigues for a brown environment.

The NDP votes against any military action that Canada is involved in, believing that other countries should protect our values while we sit idly by. While the NDP has decided its fight is with CSIS, our focus will be on ISIS and the real terror that exists not only on our home soil but abroad as well.

Our Conservative government, led by Prime Minister Harper, is the only party that can be trusted to lead Canada into the future. We will stay focused upon jobs, the economy, family, and security of our nation, because that is what Canadians want.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to firmly oppose Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures. This bill should be rejected not only because of its content, but also because of how it was presented.

Once again, the Conservative government introduced an omnibus bill. We are accustomed to that, but it still needs to be mentioned. The government's intention is to bring in a number of changes, without considering the need to give the opposition parties and Canadians the time to really analyze all the measures the bill contains. Accordingly, the NDP denounces the undemocratic nature of the debate on this bill in the House.

Bill C-59 is 150 pages long, contains 270 clauses and makes a number of changes, many of which have nothing to do with the budget. The Conservatives are unfortunately no stranger to this practice. Since I first came here in 2011, they have not hesitated to resort to it repeatedly in an effort to suppress any critical voices that might express a different opinion and bring a different point of view.

This proves once again that the government has no problem implementing obstructionist and restrictive measures to serve its own interests. This bill has many flaws and gaps that will undoubtedly be detrimental to society in the short term and the long term. For example, it will not create new day care spaces, provide real support for families in need, or help Canadian workers or the unemployed.

Since I was elected in 2011, and since the government obtained a majority, six companies in my riding have closed their doors, including Aveos, BlueWater Seafoods and Humpty Dumpty. In addition, Tim Hortons' headquarters used to be in my riding, and there have been many job cuts at Bombardier.

In the past four years, I have seen the Conservative government's inability to keep these good jobs in Canada. In Montreal, Toronto and across the country more and more companies are closing. This budget and all the measures announced will not keep well-paying jobs in Canada. That is a great concern.

Bill C-59 as proposed by the Conservatives will implement an unfair tax system and one that is especially advantageous for the rich. It includes measures such as income splitting and the increase in the TFSA contribution limit, which will cost Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars. This budget takes Canadian taxpayers' money and gives it to the rich.

As my colleague said, on October 19 the NDP will offer an alternative. We hope to implement universal and affordable day care, which will reduce the cost from nearly $1,000 a month to a maximum of $15 a day.

On the weekend, I was knocking on doors in the village of Saint-Louis in Lachine, a very nice area of my riding, with a volunteer named Jamie. A mother told us that day care was her biggest concern. She was not a poor person. She had her own home in Lachine. However, she told me that she spends $40 a day per child for day care.

Since she has two kids, it costs her $400 a week or $1,600 a month to send her two children to day care. That is a lot of money. She told me that she receives a small amount from the government but that she has to put it aside to pay her income tax in March. The NDP's plan, which seeks to establish $15 a day child care, is therefore a really good one.

We also want to help families in need by raising the federal minimum wage and developing a national housing strategy, another glaring problem that needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

The NDP is also committed to establishing a job creation tax credit for small and medium-sized businesses and developing a comprehensive strategy to tackle unemployment and recurring structural underemployment among young people. These are also subjects I talk about when I knock on doors and meet with young people who are still in university. That is one of their concerns. They are wondering how they are going to find a job after they graduate.

As a member who is only 30 years old and who graduated from university five years ago, one year before becoming an MP, I have friends who are underemployed. They have a job, but it does not use all of their skills. They are very qualified individuals who could have a better job with better working conditions but who have to settle for less because the government is not doing anything to stimulate the job market. That is a loss to our economy.

With regard to the unfair tax practices that the Conservatives continue to defend, the NDP thinks it would be better to do away with income splitting, a $2 billion measure. The NDP wants to address the issue of tax loopholes that are depriving the government of a substantial amount of revenue. That includes the stock option deduction, which costs the federal government $700 million a year. The NDP would allocate that money to eliminating child poverty in Canada, for example.

A New Democrat government will do what is needed to recover the billions of dollars that are estimated to be lost to tax evasion, tax avoidance and tax havens. We will go after tax cheats more effectively and rigorously.

Once again, these are simple and essential measures. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord did an incredible job and introduced a bill to recover the money invested in tax havens. We lose billions of dollars every year. With better measures, the government could bring in more money.

Although it is interesting to note that the bill includes some of the good ideas the Conservatives borrowed from the NDP, and while the method and process of their implementation could be improved, the New Democrats are glad to see the government acting on many NDP proposals, such as the small business tax credit and the extension of some workplace protections for interns. The bill also reduces the minimum amount that must be withdrawn from registered retirement income funds and includes the NDP proposal to extend the accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturing investments in new equipment.

On the other hand, certain sections of the bill do not align with the NDP's views. Such provisions, which would allow the Conservatives to arbitrarily set sick leave and disability plans for employees in the federal civil service, are an affront to the ongoing collective bargaining process. Furthermore, the Conservatives' income-splitting scheme would take billions from the middle class and would give it to the wealthy few. The doubling of the TFSA would only make matters worse.

This makes it all the more clear why the Conservatives resorted once again to cramming inappropriate changes into an omnibus bill to avoid proper scrutiny. In fact, the Conservatives' road to a balanced budget was paved with devastating cuts to the public service, the raiding of the employment insurance fund, and the wasteful fire sale of Canada's share in General Motors. All of these will affect the quality of services that hard-working Canadian families rely on.

This hefty bill fails to address much that is significant, including proper proposals or changes to address the environment, Canadian veterans, or seniors, for example. An NDP government will prioritize these matters over tax cuts to corporations and will give them the full attention they rightfully need.

The NDP believes in building our economy while protecting the environment by working with companies to create sustainable, clean jobs and by ensuring that polluters pay the costs for their environmental mess.

We are committed to finally fixing the broken Veterans Affairs department, implementing the veterans charter, and re-opening the nine veterans service centres across Canada.

In addressing our seniors, we would immediately reverse the federal government's plan to raise the retirement age for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement to 67.

The NDP is set on addressing all Canadians instead of focusing on the wealthy few and misleading the rest of the population. The NDP has a practical plan to boost the economy while helping the middle class, including with the child care option and by raising the minimum wage. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have once again shown their inability to learn from their past mistakes as they continue on their current track with their seventh straight omnibus budget bill.

In the words of Scott Clarke and Peter DeVries, writers for iPolitics:

By their very nature such bills are immune to meaningful Parliamentary scrutiny, discussion and debate—they're hot messes, designed to be that way. They're built not only to prevent Parliament from doing what it's designed to do, but to discredit the institution itself.

Such is unfortunately very clear in Bill C-59. It would undermine small businesses by postponing tax relief over several years while offering immediate and extremely costly tax handouts to the wealthiest households. It would hinder the ongoing collective bargaining process by arbitrarily legislating sick leave and disability plans for the public service, and it would offer no help at all for minimum-wage workers who are working full-time but are still far below the poverty line.

I had other things to say, but I think I showed why I must oppose this bill.

I will take questions from my colleagues, since I think it is important to discuss this. This is a bill that cannot be passed. It is not in the best interests of Canadians.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in order to allow more of my colleagues to speak out loud and clear in the House and to give a voice to the people of their respective ridings, I will be sharing my time with the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

Indeed, we have to share our time, because once again the Conservatives are resorting to two of their old habits, which are both equally atrocious, namely gag orders and omnibus bills in which they put absolutely anything and everything.

By introducing Bill C-59 as an omnibus bill, they are forcing us to answer yes or no to a whole series of measures that are often unrelated to one another. For example, I could say that I support the home renovation tax credit, which is in this budget, but at the same time, how could I possibly say yes to income splitting, which is tailor-made for the rich? Both of those examples deal with measures related to the economy and have their place in a budget, I think.

At the end of the day, I could take stock, weigh the pros and cons, and then decide. However, I will provide a few other examples to give us a taste and allow those watching us to understand the inconsistencies of such an approach.

For example, I could very easily say yes to the lower tax rate for SMEs in the budget. What is more, that measure is based on one that was proposed by the NDP, although it extends over a longer period of time. We wanted to do things more quickly, knowing that small and medium size businesses were the backbone of the Canadian economy and that the sooner we supported them, the sooner we would promote job creation. However, voting in favour of this measure in Bill C-59 would also mean voting in favour of hijacking the bargaining process with public servants, which is also included in the bill. I simply cannot do that.

I could certainly vote in favour of the new veterans charter, which had its own bill number, Bill C-58, if memory serves me correctly. Why are we not voting on Bill C-58 and Bill C-59 separately? If this is not playing politics, then I do not know what is. In order to vote in favour of the new veterans charter, I would have to also vote for retroactive changes to access to information legislation.

None of these things—veterans, the Access to Information Act, or the bargaining process with public servants—have anything to do with the budgetary process.

As I said earlier, Bill C-59 contains a few positive measures. For example, it improves support for caregivers. However, this measure comes in response to many concerns that were raised by the NDP, again, during this Parliament and the previous Parliament. Except for a few miserly measures, this budget does nothing for the Canadian economy. Budget 2015 ignores the middle class and posts a false surplus at the expense of the most vulnerable and our public services.

The Minister of Finance boasted that because the government is a good economic manager, it was posting a surplus of $1.4 billion. The surplus is nothing more than an accounting trick. In reality, the Conservatives helped themselves to $2 billion from the employment insurance fund, dipped into the federal fund for natural disasters and sold its General Motors shares at bargain basement prices. Thus, this election budget comes at the expense of unemployed workers and other Canadians.

As I mentioned, the 2015 budget forgets all about middle-class workers and is detrimental to the Canadian economy. Let us start with the budget's tax measures. More and more studies by well-known economists show that income-splitting and increasing the TFSA contribution limit are unfair and ineffective policies.

For those watching who are not familiar with income splitting, a couple could split up to $50,000 in income thereby reducing their total income and rate of taxation.

With that in mind, let us take the example of single-parent families, which represent one in three families in Quebec. Whom do these families split their income with? We can see right away that this measure becomes less and less attractive.

According to the economists at the C. D. Howe Institute, which, I imagine, must be a very left-leaning organization, only 15% of families could take advantage of this program. Which 15%? The families where there is a huge difference in the income of the spouses. The income gap between rich and poor continues to widen, and this measure would really benefit those families where one spouse has a substantially higher income than the other. Some studies have shown that this might be an incentive for the other spouse not to work outside the home. More often than not, the woman is the person who stays home.

I remind members that the former finance minister was highly critical of this idea and recommended that it not be supported. What is the cost of this tax measure? It will cost the federal government $2 billion a year.

How will the Minister of Finance recover that $2 billion? The answer is quite simple, and members need only take a look at the EI fund to see that the $2 billion given to the wealthiest Canadians has been taken out of the EI premiums paid by workers and employers.

Since the Conservatives are nothing if not consistent as managers and insist on making this a budget for the wealthy, this budget increases the TFSA limit to $10,000. Most of my constituents have a hard time maxing out their RRSP. Imagine putting $5,000 in a TFSA.

The measure in itself is not a bad one. However, the people who benefit when we double the limit are those who have very good incomes and who are among the wealthiest of our society. Furthermore, the financial cost of this increase will double over the next four years and reach $13.5 billion by 2030.

Of course we had concerns about the impact of that financial burden on future generations. The Minister of Finance may also have given a moment's thought to future generations when he made the following statement.

He simply said, “Why don't we leave that to [the] Prime Minister['s] granddaughter to solve that problem?” Let us just keep shovelling the pile forward until we hit a wall.

I could go on and on about employment insurance. If barely 39% of the people who contribute manage to collect benefits when bad luck strikes, that means there is a problem with the way the employment insurance fund is managed.

The NDP proposed measures that should be in the budget but are not: getting rid of income splitting, which costs us $2 billion; developing a comprehensive strategy to tackle structural youth unemployment and underemployment; offering a hiring and training tax credit to help businesses create jobs for Canadian youth; and abolishing the appalling employment insurance reform. I could go on.

The New Democratic Party's proposals will be in its platform and will enable all Canadians to choose a better government that listens to their needs and has a clear vision for development that will leave no member of society behind. That will happen on October 19.

Between now and then, I invite the majority of MPs in the House of Commons to vote against this way of doing business that involves repeated use of time allocation and omnibus bills that purport to fix all of the world's problems with a single yes or no.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here to discuss the budget, Bill C-59. However, like other budget bills. this is more like a telephone directory for many of our towns and cities across the country because it has so much other stuff buried within it that has very little to do with the budget.

How can my colleague justify putting in the budget bill legislation that would retroactively change an existing law and justify the shredding of the long gun registry data?

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure today to rise in the House to speak at third reading stage of Bill C-59, economic action plan 2015 act, No. 1.

At the outset, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence, on his first budget, a very comprehensive budget, one that I am very proud to be a member of a team and a government to support in the House. I wish him well for many more balanced and successful budgets in the future.

This bill would legislate key elements of economic action plan 2015, which include measures to support jobs and growth, help communities prosper and ensure the security of Canadians. The bill also includes the measures that were contained in Bill C-57, the support for families act, and Bill C-58, the support for veterans and their families act.

However, perhaps the most significant part of the bill is that it would return Canada to a balanced budget and would enshrine in law balanced budget legislation reflecting our government's responsible fiscal management policy, which is creating jobs and putting more money back in the pockets of Canadians. A balanced budget allows the Government of Canada to cut taxes further for Canadian families, individuals and businesses.

My riding of Mississauga—Streetsville has the second highest number of families with children living at home in all of Canada. That is why our government's family tax cut and benefits plan really hits home in my community.

Our government will increase the universal child care benefit for children 6 and under to $160 per month, and extend the benefit for children aged 7 to 17 by $60 per month. This initiative puts thousands of dollars a year back into the pockets of families in my riding, and allows parents to make their choices for their children on how that money will be spent. It is important to note that the increase to the UCCB is retroactive to January 1, 2015 and that the new benefit will start to flow for families this July.

Further, our government is instituting a family income-splitting program that would allow a higher income spouse to, in effect, transfer $50,000 of taxable income to a spouse in a lower tax bracket, effective for the 2014 tax year. Some families would save as much as $2,000 a year in total family tax paid, yet another example of how we are putting more money back into the pockets of hard-working Canadian families.

Economic action plan 2015 would also increases the child care expense deduction dollar limits by $1,000, effective for the 2015 tax year. The maximum amounts that can be claimed will increase to $8,000 from $7,000 for children under age 7, to $5,000 from $4,000 for children aged 7 to 16, and up to $11,000 from $10,000 for children who are eligible for the disability tax credit.

Millions of Canadians have taken advantage of the very popular tax-free savings account. TFSAs are an excellent way for Canadians to save tax free and have that money available in the future for their personal needs. Many Canadians have maxed out at the old $5,500 a year limit, and many would contribute more if allowed. I am very pleased to report that economic action plan 2015 would raise the maximum contribution limit to $10,000, effective in 2015 and subsequent years.

Bill C-59 would also reduce the minimum withdrawal factors for registered retirement income funds to permit seniors to preserve more of their retirement savings to better support their retirement income needs.

The bill would also create the home accessibility tax credit to assist seniors and disabled Canadians offset renovation costs to make their homes safer and more accessible so they could live independently and remain in their homes.

Mississauga—Streetsville is home to many seniors who tell me they want to age gracefully in place, remain in their cherished home as long as possible and be able to make modifications to improve their living conditions. The home accessibility tax credit is welcome news in my community.

Branch 139 of the Royal Canadian Legion is located in the village of Streetsville. I am a member and I visit the legion regularly to support its initiatives. I have met with veterans there and I was honoured to present World War II “V” pins to dozens of these brave Canadians. That is why I am pleased economic action plan 2015 would ensure that veterans and their families receive the support they need by providing a new retirement income security benefit to moderately and severely disabled veterans. It would expand access to the permanent impairment allowance for disabled veterans and would create a new tax-free family caregiver relief benefit to recognize the very important role of caregivers.

This government values and supports the brave women and men who have served in our Canadian Forces and we will ensure that our veterans get the full support they need and deserve.

During pre-budget consultations and meetings, I had the opportunity to meet with groups like ALS Society of Canada, the MS Society of Canada and others about the compassionate care benefit provided under the employment insurance system.

Bill C-59 would extend compassionate care benefits from the current six weeks of coverage to six months to better support Canadians caring for gravely ill and dying family members. This change would benefit thousands of families across Canada when they need the financial and emotional support the most.

The bill would also implement very important measures for supporting jobs and growth. Our government would reduce the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019, lowering taxes for job-creating small businesses and their owners by $2.7 billion between now and 2019-20. This is very good news for members of the Streetsville Business Improvement Association and other companies operating in Mississauga—Streetsville. Predictable lower taxes each and every year is an important signal to the small business community.

Recently, I have had the opportunity to announce several investments in Mississauga, through the Federal Economic Development Corporation of Southern Ontario. These strategic investments assist leading edge companies grow and expand, create new high-wage jobs, and contribute to research and innovation.

Economic action plan 2015 would see the budget deficit reduced from $55.6 billion during the height of the recession and now with a $1.4 billion projected surplus. All Canadians should be thanked and should be proud for their hard work and their support of this government as we return Canada to balanced budgets.

I ask all members of the House to carefully read Bill C-59 and the important initiatives contained within it, and to rise to support the bill so we can continue to ensure Canada is strong, proud and free.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before question period I spoke at length about the fact that the Conservatives have once again included provisions in their bill that are probably unconstitutional. I was referring to the provisions concerning a retroactive amendment to the Access to Information Act, which would affect the gun registry and block an Ontario Provincial Police investigation. I was also referring to the fact that the government wants to include a provision that would force the pre-emptive resolution of the public sector sick leave issue. This violates the freedom to negotiate that has been recognized by various courts, including the Supreme Court. These two measures are unconstitutional and could be challenged in the Supreme Court. That has already happened with measures such as the retroactive amendments to the rules for Supreme Court appointments of Quebec justices, which was an attempt to avoid the fiasco of Justice Nadon's appointment.

I do not have much time left. I could probably talk for two or three days, but I will give my colleagues a chance to debate the aspects of Bill C-59 that affect them. This government is clearly tired and worn out, as the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley just said. The government's economic measures are doing nothing to stimulate growth or job creation, despite the fancy numbers it has been throwing at us since the great recession. The numbers that have been released on economic growth have been clear: we are stagnating. The Conservatives have no solution.

Since the budget was tabled and we have been debating this bill, we have talked quite a bit about income splitting, which this government decided to call the “family tax cut” because it is aware of the public backlash against this measure, which will benefit just 15% of Canada's wealthiest families. It is obvious, though, that this is income splitting, an unfair measure that, at the end of the day, left us in a deficit in the last fiscal year, since this measure applies to current tax returns. We have also talked at length about the increase in the TFSA limit. That is yet another measure that will only benefit the wealthiest taxpayers.

These measures ultimately do nothing to address the problems with economic growth. They only help the families with the highest incomes and leave middle-class and low-income families out in the cold, with no guarantee that the money that ends up in the wealthiest taxpayers' pockets will eventually be reinvested in the economy.

The government also enhanced the universal child care benefit. Notwithstanding the fact that this measure is still called the universal child care benefit, it will be extended to include children ages 6 to 17, even though 17-year-olds can hardly be called children. Of course, we are not opposed to this measure. However, the fact remains that the funding for it mainly comes from the elimination of another tax credit, the child tax credit. The Conservatives do not talk about it very often. They did away with the child tax credit, took that money and reinvested it to enhance the universal child care benefit, and then they boast about doing something for families. However, when it comes right down to it, the impact of this measure will not be as great as it would have been had the government decided to support the NDP's proposal to create a pan-Canadian child care program like Quebec's.

Quebec's program has been very successful. I will end by talking a little bit about that because I am running out of time. Between 1996, when low-cost child care was introduced in Quebec, and 2008, 69,700 mothers joined the workforce. The employment rate for mothers with children under the age of six increased by 22%. The number of single mothers on social assistance was reduced by more than half, from 99,000 to 45,000 women. 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 36% to 22%, that is, from more than a third to less than a quarter.

During that period, the GDP rose by $5.1 billion, or 1.7%.

We are proposing measures that will not only provide direct assistance to Canadian families but also contribute directly to economic growth. Meanwhile, the Conservatives are turning a deaf ear, and they will feel the effects of their inaction when they are kicked out of office on October 19 and replaced by an NDP government that listens to these families.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the member for Burlington did not really answer the question I asked him. I asked him why the Conservatives included measures such as cutting the small business tax rate from 11% to 9% and extending the accelerated capital cost allowance. Those two measures were in the opposition motion that we moved, that the Conservatives opposed, and that they voted against.

I am going to talk about Bill C-59. I will be splitting my time with the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

I spoke to this bill at second reading. I was a member of the Standing Committee on Finance for three years. That was my first love. Not much has changed with Bill C-59. It is yet another random collection of laws being amended, abolished and even created by an omnibus bill, and it makes no sense. Many of these measures have nothing to do with the budget. Like many of the previous omnibus budget bills, this one contains measures that I would call unconstitutional and that will not survive a Supreme Court challenge.

That has happened before. I clearly remember when the Conservatives introduced a bill two years ago to retroactively amend the rules for appointing Quebec judges to the Supreme Court in an attempt to extricate themselves from the mess they made when they tried to appoint Justice Nadon. This latest bill contains two measures that will most likely be deemed unconstitutional and overturned by the Supreme Court.

The first measure amends the provisions dealing with the gun registry. We are not talking about the registry itself but access to the data it contained. The Ontario Provincial Police is currently conducting an investigation into the RCMP's failure to comply with the provisions of the Access to Information Act on the gun registry. I am not accusing the RCMP of anything at this time. We do not know what happened. An investigation is under way. However, this budget bill attempts—and I have never seen such a thing before—to retroactively amend provisions of the act to exonerate the RCMP and put an end to the investigation. That goes against all of the rules of law that we have in this country. The Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves for resorting to such a measure, which, if it is passed and not overturned by the Supreme Court, will certainly set an extremely dangerous precedent for our country's legislative process.

What is more, this measure is not set out in a public safety bill and was not examined by the committee that deals with the Access to Information Act. This measure is set out in a budget bill.

I sat in for one of my colleagues at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, where two RCMP officers were called as witnesses. Honestly, I felt uncomfortable for them because they were asked to appear but could say nothing. They could not comment on the precedent that it would set or on the Ontario Provincial Police investigation. In fact, they could not talk about anything, except for the question about the Access to Information Act. That issue was not included in the bill. The subject was really the process of amending legislation and they had nothing to say about that.

That clearly shows that the Conservatives are abusing the budget process. That worked well for them in the first budget bills. Everyone was offended, but no one could do anything because it was actually not illegal to do it. It simply was not ethical and, above all, it was not transparent.

I will end with the second measure, before I am allowed to resume my speech. This measure gives the government the unilateral authority to limit the health care plan and the public service sick leave benefits, and to impose changes on these two systems. Negotiations must involve two consenting parties. If the government uses its weight and legislative authority to legislate changes to a contract, which really should be negotiated, the process will be perverted.

Once again, this creates a dangerous precedent that jeopardizes the right of the public sector, as a unionized body, to conduct negotiations freely.

I will be pleased to come back to this after question period. I will have many other things to say to the House.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for sharing his time with me. This probably will be the last time I am on my feet making a speech in the House in the 41st Parliament, but I am hoping to be back in the next Parliament. I think the Speaker was hoping that this was a going away speech, but it is not. I want to give a shout out to my grandmother who watches the House of Commons on television every day hoping that her grandson will get up to speak, so Mr. Speaker, allow me to say hello to Grandma Wallace.

Today we are speaking to Bill C-59, which is the budget implementation bill. I explain to my constituents all the time that the budget itself is a policy document that needs to be implemented. We have a couple of opportunities throughout the year to implement what is in the budget. The budget was actually passed by the House and now we have to implement what was in the budget through a ways and means motion and this bill we are debating today. Normally we would have one in the spring and one in the fall, but we will be active on the campaign trail in the fall, so we are addressing Bill C-59 now, which has a lot of very important pieces that were in the budget and which will be implemented immediately.

I also heard today that our colleague from Edmonton—Leduc is retiring and is not seeking re-election. That member of Parliament has done an excellent job for a number of years as the chair of the finance committee. I want to thank him for his efforts and all he has done on the financial items.

We heard some really good speeches last week. I was in attendance both Tuesday and Wednesday nights last week for the speeches of those who are not seeking re-election in the fall. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the House who made some excellent speeches about why they ran for office, the accomplishments they made and why it is important for us as parliamentarians to continue this work. I want to thank those individuals who are moving on either to retirement or to other career opportunities.

The budget implementation bill we are dealing with today has a number of key items which I and other colleagues have advocated for over a number of years.

The first item is the changes to the plans in terms of withdrawal rates for RRIFs.

I have been told that in my riding of Burlington, the statistics are that 50% of my constituents are age 55 and older. I do not represent all of Burlington. I represent a portion, but the area I represent tends to have a fair number of seniors.

I have been here nine years and there were a number of issues where I had a response from constituents. On the issue of withdrawal rates for RRIFs, there were 40 individuals who came to see me. They were not related to each other. They were not connected by any organization. Forty individuals expressed the need for a change to the RRIF plan. They explained to me why it is important.

People in my riding are living longer, as people are across the country. I still have a grandmother. When RRIFs first came to be, there was an understanding based on what the average lifespan of an individual was. In Canada, because of our quality of life, the health care provided and the environment, people are living longer. They need to be able to stretch their retirement dollars longer as the average age is increasing.

The other point that is important is that once people turn 71 years of age, their RRSPs have to be converted into registered retirement income funds. The Conservatives moved the age from 69 to 71 years.

Those funds are normally invested in the marketplace, and there were some challenges in the marketplace in 2008 and 2009. Those retirement nest eggs that those people worked all their lives for and saved for suffered due to the economic downturn that happened at that time. At the same time, we were forcing individuals to take money out at a minimum level even if they did not need the cash flow because they had other cash flow opportunities, whether that was a pension plan or funds from other sources. The requirement to take that money out meant that those individuals felt a loss twice: once in the marketplace and once in having to pay taxes on money that earned less than they had anticipated it would earn.

With the help of many of my colleagues on this side of the House, we advocated that the Minister of Finance reduce the minimum amount that had to be drawn from a RRIF. I am very happy to see that in the budget. It is a win for seniors across the country, including in my riding of Burlington. I am happy that it is part of this implementation bill so we can have it in place before this Parliament is done.

The next item is something that I had talked about and advocated for. This was actually a bit of a surprise. Often, we backbenchers are asked how much influence we have. On two points in this budget alone, I can say we backbenchers were advocating for change.

One change allows people who are caring for a sick loved one to collect EI for six months instead of six weeks. That is a significant change and an important piece for my riding. As I said, we have a number of seniors in my riding and, as we know, when people age, their health care and support needs increase. It is natural for that to happen. In this budget there is the opportunity for caregivers to increase the amount they can collect in EI if for some personal or family reason they need to be at home to look after someone who is in need. That change from six weeks to six months will have an important impact on someone being able to afford to stay at home with a relative who needs that support. It will also help build the community. It will help the family because at whatever stage of the illness the individual is experiencing, the caregiver will be there and will not have to worry about the financial aspects of missing work for that six-month period.

The other thing I would like to talk about is that in my riding we do not have one big employer. We are not a one industry town. Our largest employer employs around 800 people, which is fairly large. That is a good-sized company. Members should know that the unemployment rate for Burlington is in the range of 5% to 5.6%. The majority of our employment base is small businesses, the job creators in this country. Our change to the tax rate from 11% to 9% will make a significant impact on the small businesses in my community. They will be able to pay more people to come to work for them. The tax burden will be less. They will be able to use the money that will become available to reinvest in their businesses. Reinvesting in their businesses means either buying more equipment or having more employees, which creates employment and wealth and makes this country a better place.

It was my honour to speak to Bill C-59.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is really something to hear what the Conservatives are saying.

It will come as no surprise when Canadians reject this government's platform and policies, since the economy has been very weak for nearly 10 years now, and the government has done nothing to fight climate change and poverty here in Canada.

This is another omnibus bill that is over 150 pages long and has over 270 clauses. Not only is the Conservatives' lack of leadership affecting their popularity in the polls, but it also represents a wasted opportunity to stimulate our economy and help families. Families need a government that understands the economy and the current reality.

There are two ironies that exist within this one bill, and in a sense, they are going to be the Conservatives' legacy when Canadians finally throw them from office. The first part is their shutting down debate. Just last week, we saw the Conservatives more than triple the previous record of any government in any Parliament in Canadian history for shutting down the democratic process in here by shutting down debate on something like the budget bill, as they have done with so many other bills, like Bill C-51 and all the other controversial bills they have brought in.

That is the first part of the government's legacy, and that is what it will be remembered for.

The second part will be its horrible economic management. More than 1.3 million Canadians are out of work today. The government has added more than $150 billion in debt to the national debt. That is more than $4,000 for every man, woman, and child. We can ask what we got for it. According to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who, like most bankers, is hardly one to use such strong language, called this Canadian economy and the circumstances we are in right now “atrocious”.

We would have thought that on the eve of an election, with an economy that continues to shed jobs, the government would have brought forward some sort of, dare I say, action plan. I am not talking about the action plan the Conservatives refer to in the $750 million in self-promoting ads they constantly shower Canadians with. I am talking about an actual action plan. I know that it is hard to imagine that the spin could actually match some reality, but that is what we were hoping for. Canadians, from all the polling the government has done, have grown increasingly cynical about its advertising scheme, because it has met so little with the reality.

Canadians are waiting for action, hoping for action, and demanding action. Let us see what they actually got from the government in the most recent omnibus bill. Again, the government has moved thousands of pages of omnibus legislation through the House. In all of that omnibus legislation, there was virtually not a single amendment or change.

What typically happens, and it is true with this bill, is that an omnibus bill goes in to fix the mistakes of the last omnibus bill, which was fixing the mistakes of the omnibus bill before that. If we look up “incompetence” in the dictionary, we will now see a picture of the Prime Minister, and under a subheading, all of his legislation.

Let us look at the Canadian economy right now. It is shedding jobs in retail, manufacturing, and the energy sector. As I said, more than 1.3 million Canadians today are out of work.

There was the fiasco of the temporary foreign worker program. The Conservative government created a loophole so big someone could drive a truck through it. It put more than 300,000 Canadians out of work and brought in temporary foreign workers, with absolutely no provisions to protect Canadian jobs or even the temporary foreign workers in the job conditions under which they were going to work.

The Canadian economy has lost more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs since the government took over. That is more than half a million manufacturing jobs since 2000. What is the reaction? What is the response? These are the jobs we built up over generations. We built the Canadian middle class on this. We built the strength of the Canadian economy on this. Meanwhile, these guys are fiddling while Rome burns. We have lost more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs, and the Conservatives pretend that there is no problem and that there is nothing to address.

We have also seen, according to the CIBC, that job quality in Canada is at its lowest level in a generation. It has never been this bad. The work has become more precarious, jobs are becoming more part-time, and there are fewer and fewer benefits, like pensions and true protections through the employment insurance program. That has been under the Conservative and previous Liberal governments' watch, with no addressing of it. Canadians know this experience. Their jobs have become more precarious and less certain.

This is a strange contradiction for the Conservatives. They continually stand in this place, as my friend just did, and talk about families and family-supporting jobs, yet in their policies, they go about destroying the very jobs that support Canadians and Canadian families. That is the great contradiction of Conservative policy. On the one hand, we get the talking points that say how important it is to build Canada and Canadian communities and Canadian families and all that Leave It to Beaver talk. They would like to go back in time it seems sometimes. On the other hand, the very jobs that support our homes, our communities, and our families are the very jobs the Conservatives have watched disappear, without any hint of concern whatsoever.

Child care one would think would support Canadian families. Does it not seem like something logical to take a step toward? It is so important that this Conservative Prime Minister promised Canadians in the last election that he would create 125,000 child care spaces in Canada, somewhat recognizing that there is an actual need out there. How many have they created? They have created zero spaces. When we have asked them about it, they seem to have no shame and in fact now call child care spaces institutionalizing children. Is that not a fascinating turn of phrase? Somehow the public contributing to a system like a national child care program would be institutionalizing our kids. Do they refer to our medical system that way or our public school system? When I send my children to public school, are they being institutionalized? This is rhetoric that is unfitting for any government, yet here we have it.

On pensions, this is going from bad to the bizarre. We saw the Conservatives unilaterally raise the retirement age for Canadians from 65 to 67, with no consultation. In fact, the Prime Minister stood in a roomful of billionaires in Europe to make the announcement. He decided that it was the best place to tell Canadians that the entire pension regime was changing.

It will cost seniors as much as $24,000 per senior in lost pensions across the board. Low income or high income, it does not matter. For Conservatives, going after pensions was their primary goal. We said this was a concern, because we thought the provinces would then follow suit and raise the age, thereby costing seniors even more. We found out just this past week that the Government of Quebec has made such an announcement to raise its retirement age in Quebec as well.

The consequences of the Prime Minister unilaterally making this policy decision have hurt seniors. The Conservatives know this, but they do not seem to care much for poor folks or the general population at large if they do not happen to vote for them. However, this is a moment when the Conservatives are now suddenly concerned, because seniors do in fact vote in our country, and lo and behold, there is an election coming soon.

What do the Conservatives do? Realizing they are losing support among Canadian seniors, they roll out a scheme, they float a balloon, saying, “Maybe we will have a voluntary system to contribute to the CPP”. This is something the Conservatives themselves looked at not that many years ago and that Jim Flaherty pronounced upon. He said that they had consulted with the experts and the provinces and that such a scheme would not work. Now the Conservatives are saying they know better than the pension experts and better than their dearly departed friend Jim Flaherty. Now they are going to go to a voluntary system, undermining the basic foundation of what the Canada pension plan is.

When we ask Canadians if they would like the ability to contribute more to the CPP, along with their employers, because that is how it works, upwards of 82% of Canadians are in favour of it. Conservatives are not in favour of that. They call contributing to one's pension a tax. When Canadians take some of their salary, and that contribution is matched by an employer, they call that a tax on Canadians. My goodness. People paying into their own pensions so they can live with some dignity when they retire the Conservatives have somehow morphed into a tax.

When the only attack they have is to call everything a tax, then I guess everything starts to look like a tax, whether it is or not. I wonder if the Conservatives are walking around their ridings asking Canadians if they are contributing to their RRSPs and telling them that they should not do that, because they are self-imposing a tax, and that they should fight to get rid of their CPP contributions at work with their employers, because that must be a job-killing tax as well.

That is such stupidity. That is ludicrous. It comes from a government that is desperate, obviously. The Conservatives are getting to the point now where they are starting to cling and grasp. They will bring up any debate they can to stir up a little more in donations and perhaps a couple of more votes. However, the plan is not working, obviously.

We also see a government that is in the midst of global concerns and a lack of job growth in Canada. In fact, in the last 16 months, job growth was at its lowest level in Canada, outside of a recession, in four decades.

One would think that if the Conservative plan were working, it would be working, but it is not. One would think that the Conservative strategy of giving billions away in corporate tax cuts to the largest, most profitable corporations, without any strings attached, would be creating those jobs, but it is not. The lowest job growth, outside of a recession, in 40 years is the Conservative legacy. The Conservatives are busy pulling muscles patting themselves on the back. They think this has been a job well done, that it is mission accomplished.

Let us look at the new programs the Conservatives are now going to launch. They actually ran a debt on them. Many Canadians do not know that the Conservatives ran a debt of $2 billion is year. The cost of their income-splitting scheme is, lo and behold, about $2 billion. They are going to borrow money to retroactively apply an income-splitting scheme that benefits only 15% of Canadian families. There is nothing for single parent families. That might not sit in the Conservative world view. I was raised by a single mom. Many Canadians are being raised by single parents. The Conservatives' income-splitting plan does nothing for them or for couples who happen to earn similar amounts of money or for individuals who sit in the middle- or lower-income bracket.

Two billion dollars has been rushed out the door by the Conservatives, who say that this will provide great help for Canadian families, yet the bottom 20% of income earners, families who might actually qualify, will get nothing, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

They reject the NDP proposal for up to $15-a-day affordable, quality child care across the country. We know, from TD Bank and other economists who have studied this, that for every $1 we put in, $1.50 to $1.75 goes back into the economy. This has worked in Quebec, which is largely where our child care model is based.

We understand that there is value in helping women, if they choose, to get back into the workforce. Every industrialized country in the world looking to improve its productivity needs to help women in particular get back into the workforce. We need to do that here in Canada. We have the lowest female participation rate in the Canadian economy since 2002.

The Conservatives might think they want to do a little social engineering and turn the clock back to 1950 and that all will be well. However, this is the reality for Canadian women working today: they want access to affordable child care. They want to make the choice. When the average cost in the GTA is $1,600 per child, there are Canadian families going to work today who are spending more on child care than they are on their mortgages. That is a reality, and that reality often keeps incredibly qualified, talented people out of the workforce, because they simply cannot afford child care.

It is no wonder the private sector economists have said that this is an investment, but not in the way the Conservatives use the term when they talk about income splitting being an investment. It is not an investment. It is a scheme. Child care is an investment that would pay back into the economy.

The Conservatives also have no evidence that the TFSA shows an increase in investments and retirement security for Canadians. There has been no increase in contributions toward retirement vehicles. It has mostly been an exercise in people taking their retirement money and moving it from one vehicle to another. That is fine, but the Conservatives should not pretend that this is suddenly going to make retirement security better in Canada, because it will not.

The Conservatives now want to double this program. Who has $10,000 burning a hole in his or her pocket at the end of every year? Is it the middle-class families and individuals the Conservatives are talking about? Maybe they are in their world, but they are not the people I deal with. They are not looking through their books at the end of the year and finding an extra $10,000 sitting around and wondering what they are going to do with it, until they see an ad, which they paid for, on TV to help them figure out what to do with all that extra money. Canadians are having a hard time making ends meet.

The current personal debt rate in Canada is at an all-time historic high. Canadians owe more personal debt right now than they ever have before, and there is a reason for that. Job quality and job security have gone down, yet the cost of living has continued to rise.

Every once in a while, the Conservatives have stumbled across, almost by accident, a program that could work and help Canadians and help create jobs. Does anyone remember the home retrofit program? This was an interesting program. The Conservatives announced it once, killed it, announced it again, and killed it again. What did this program do? It helped Canadians deal with the rising cost of heating and cooling their homes. It also created jobs in the small business sector, in the localized sector. It also helped us deal with climate change. Earlier my friend talked about the drought conditions and the concerns about the weather and the increase in the intensity of storms.

It did these three things, the Holy Trinity. There it is. The program helped Canadians reduce costs. It helped small businesses get some work and provide jobs. It helped us deal with our climate change commitments. Conservative and Liberal governments made these promises but had no plan to follow through on them. They killed the program not once but twice.

We are going to bring it back and actually run the program and let Canadians enjoy the benefits of dealing with climate change, because the Conservatives constantly try to pit the economy versus the environment. However, we know that not to be true. The most productive, most efficient, most prosperous countries on earth right now are doing both. They do not trade one off for the other, because anyone foolish enough and ignorant enough to think that he or she can simply drive an economy through the environment, through the ecological footprint that we bear, that there is some other virtual reality that he or she can create that is not constrained by our environment is a dinosaur and should do what dinosaurs do and have always done, which is to just go away and move along so that we can actually evolve the Canadian economy into something much more fair and much more prosperous.

We on the NDP side believe in clean technology. We saw last year globally for the first time that contributions into the clean tech sector exceeded all of the investments into the oil and gas and carbon economies. We have seen the globe moving this way, not just the so-called advanced countries, but also China, India and Brazil. Where is Canada? We have a Prime Minister who can barely utter the words “climate change”, who stands up and the only promise he is willing to commit to is something that would happen at the end of this century. When we ask him how we would get there, he says that is not for him to worry about because he will not be around.

That is similar to the Conservatives' commitments on the tax-free savings accounts. When the finance minister was asked how he was going to pay for these things, because it gets expensive really quick, he said that it was not really a problem for him to worry about, that it was a problem for the Prime Minister's hypothetical granddaughter to worry about. That was a moment of insight, almost a bit of a Freudian slip, when he said he was not concerned with it, that the Conservatives are not concerned with the huge cost of a program they hope would just maybe get them enough votes in the next election because the real costs would be paid down the line by our grandkids. “So be it and so what,” say the Conservatives, which is so similar to their approach on climate change.

Since the Conservative government's coming to office, how many years have we been promised regulations in the oil and gas sector, which by the way, is the most expensive way to deal with climate change according to the oil and gas sector. It would much rather have a price on carbon that actually meets the reality. That is why the major oil companies in this country are calling for such a thing. Do members think that the Conservatives are running into the offices of Suncor and Syncrude and yelling at them about their carbon tax policy and how they want to kill the economy? Of course they are not. We understand that businesses need certainty. They also understand that pollution costs and that the polluter pay principle should be based in law and based in science. What do the Conservatives do with science? They muzzle it.

We have also seen $14 billion in cuts to government programs, austerity programs in the midst of this fragile economy. What the IMF, the World Bank and the EU all are suggesting right now is that we need to move our economies forward, not try to cut them to some prosperity. However, we have seen time and again where the Conservatives, and before them the Liberals, try this ideology, which is not new; it is as old as Reaganomics. The ideology is that if they simply cut $650 billion in corporate taxes, which the Conservatives did, as did the Liberals before them, companies would just magically reinvest in hiring more people, in manufacturing, and all of the rest of that. Mark Carney said for years that there was $650 billion of dead money sitting in corporate bank accounts in Canada right now not being invested. Therefore, the philosophy of the Conservatives has failed.

With the Conservatives' recent infrastructure announcements and the announcements for transit, we have seen time and again that all of it is to come years down the road. What the Conservatives most care about is themselves and trying to get themselves somehow re-elected despite all to the contrary. It seems to me that the Canadian people and the Canadian economy have called for real action, not ads, not another scam, not a bit more spin. They want something that will actually help the Canadian economy.

Two suggestions which we made, and the Conservatives voted against, would have helped the manufacturing sector and the small business community. The Conservatives voted against them one month and then put them in the budget. Let us give them a bit of credit at this moment of hypocrisy where they vote against something and then drive it into the budget the next week and suddenly think it is a good idea because it is painted blue.

Canadians need and deserve a lot more than what they are getting, but the good news is this. There are only a few months to go until this tired and worn-out government will be tossed from office. To that effort, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following:

“this House decline to give third reading to Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, because it:

a) introduces income splitting and super-sized Tax-Free Savings Account measures that will primarily benefit the wealthy few while wasting billions of dollars;

b) does not introduce a $15 per hour minimum wage or create a universal, affordable childcare program, both of which would support the working and middle class families who actually need help;

c) leaves Canadian interns without protections against excessive work hours, sexual harassment, and an unending cycle of unpaid work;

d) sets a dangerous precedent for Canadians' right to know by making retroactive changes to absolve the government of its role in potential violations of access-to-information laws; and

e) attacks the right of free and fair collective bargaining for hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

moved that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back here again this week with the opportunity to speak to Bill C-59 after a busy weekend in the riding of Crowfoot, having been in Camrose and Stettler for their art walk, as well as the rodeo and parade, and a number of other events that were held throughout my riding. I know all of us are busy on weekends. A great way to start Monday is debating Bill C-59.

This morning I would like to outline some specific features of the bill that would support families, seniors and rural Canada, as I represent predominantly a rural riding.

Let me begin by reaffirming that under the bold leadership of our Prime Minister, our government's top priority has been creating jobs, and focusing on economic growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians. That is why our government brought forward a number of measures to do that, such as cut taxes for job-creating businesses, invested in research and development, expanded markets for Canadian businesses abroad, committed unprecedented support for job-creating infrastructure, and established the framework for responsible development of our natural resources, despite global economic fragility, geopolitical uncertainty with what was happening in Europe, Ukraine and the Middle East, and also volatile oil prices.

Make no mistake that our economic action plan is working. It is the plan that has steered Canada out of the great recession and created over 1.2 million net new jobs, overwhelmingly in the private sector, full-time and well-paying jobs. According to KPMG, total business tax costs in Canada are the lowest in the G7 countries and 46% lower than our closest ally and trading partner, the United States. Bloomberg has ranked Canada the second best place in the world to do business.

However, this success does not just happen. It does not occur overnight. It requires tough decisions, sound judgment and a focus on priorities. Supporting small business has been one of those priorities. It is also a central element in the budget that we are debating here today, the economic action plan. the budget implementation act. We have delivered substantial ongoing tax savings to small businesses and their owners. This enables them to take those savings and reinvest in their businesses, which helps create more jobs for those businesses.

We already reduced the small business tax rate from 12% to 11% earlier, and in 2015 we propose to take it from 11% to 9% by 2019. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has strongly endorsed this measure and agrees with our plan. Many of the small businesses that benefit from our tax relief are from rural Canada.

Our government recognizes the important role that farmers play in our economy and communities. Canadian farmers have always been among the best producers, the best farmers in the entire world. For generations, they have fed Canadians around the globe, while providing jobs and opportunities across Canada. My grandfather moved to Canada in 1905-06 with the hope of homesteading, breaking the land and starting a family farm. That story has been told many times throughout the west and throughout Canada.

As someone who has owned and operated a farming business, I can say first-hand that to ensure these operations succeed, it demands hard work, focus and discipline. A farmer's budget does not simply balance itself. Our government firmly believes Canadian farmers should be strong and profitable, and able to capitalize on market opportunities. We believe Canadian farmers deserve support from their elected officials, not the mistreatment and high taxes that Liberal Party elitists imposed for 13 long years. Those high-tax measures and bloated government policies burden our agricultural sector and set our farmers back.

By contrast, our Conservative government stands with farmers. We are working to provide them access to millions of new customers. Through our free trade agreements, through expanding our customer base, we have an opportunity to get into countries that we have never been in before, and we have lowered tariffs so we can have trade with many of those countries.

Let me remind members that last year we simplified the tax rules relating to the lifetime capital gains exemption and the intergenerational rollover for many Canadian farmers. To accomplish this, our government passed legislation to generally treat the taxpayer's combined farming business the same as perhaps a separate farming business conducted by the same taxpayer. This will ensure consistent treatment for taxpayers who conduct various farming activities.

Economic action plan 2015 would build upon the work we have been doing since 2006 to foster a strong, stable, sustainable and prosperous agriculture sector for all of Canada.

I was pleased to join members of the Saskatchewan farming community and our Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, to announce new federal supports for agriculture. What we announced was to allow farmers to maintain more of their capital for retirement. Economic action plan 2015 would bring forward the measures to provide funding to increase lifetime capital gains exemption for farmers and fishermen, but certainly for farmers, up to $1 million.

This was welcomed by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. It said:

The CCA appreciates another measure of practical importance to producers, particularly those wishing to retire or transition from the industry.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture also praised this measure. It said:

The Lifetime Capital Gains exemption is an important tool for helping farmers manage the tax burden associated with the transfer of farm assets. The CFA is pleased the increase to $1 million is effective immediately, as it will assist farmers in their transfer of assets to the next generation by providing greater flexibility for both the retirees and new entrants.

That answers a lot.

Farmers realize they may be living poor, but they have some savings in their farm assets. When they retire, they need those to help them through their retirement so they may have a secure, dignified retirement.

I would like to now turn to parts of the bill which deal with improving the quality of life of Canadians, in particular, the health of Canadians.

There are measures in the bill that would continue our government's proud record of being a champion for persons with disabilities. This is an area where the former finance minister was a very strong advocate. As we shaped economic action plan 2014, I was pleased to witness this commitment by former Minister Flaherty first hand at the budget table. His legacy includes the landmark registered disability savings plan, which helped to ensure the long-term financial security of Canadians with severe disabilities. Since becoming available in 2008, more than 100,000 Canadians have opened a registered disabilities savings plan, and with that has come a great deal of confidence and security.

To ensure this program continues to serve Canadians who need it most, today's bill proposes an extension of the federal temporary measure that allows a qualifying family member to become the plan holder of a registered disability savings plan for an adult individual who might not be able to enter into a contract on his or her own. We are also introducing a new home accessibility tax credit for persons with disabilities and for seniors. This non-refundable credit will provide tax recognition for the cost of improvements that allow a person who is eligible for the disability tax credit, or is a senior who wants to stay in his or her home to be more mobile, safe and functional within their own home. These measures will assist Canadians who face the daily challenges of living with a disability or who are in their seniors years in leading a much better quality of life.

Let me also highlight how today's legislation builds on our government's support for families and communities across our great country of Canada.

Since Canadians gave us our first mandate in 2006, this government has taken significant action to support and protect Canadian consumers by reducing taxes time and time again, including cutting the GST twice. Keeping taxes low and putting more back into the pockets of hard-working Canadians to spend in the way they decide is essential for jobs and growth.

Today, because of the measures introduced by our government, a typical two-earner family of four will receive up to $6,600 in tax relief and increased benefits in 2015. Economic action plan 2015 builds on the government's record of support for Canadian families by keeping taxes low and helping them save.

We are focused on helping 100% of families with children with policies like the family tax cut, and increased and expanded benefits through the universal child care benefit. Unfortunately, the opposition parties, both the Liberals and the NDP, would scrap the universal child care benefit and cancel income splitting for families.

Our government is also providing tax support for seniors and persons with disabilities, as well as measures to help students pay for their education.

Whether they want to purchase a new home or a car, start a new business or save for retirement, Canadian families have many reasons to save. That is why our government introduced the groundbreaking tax-free savings account, or TFSA for short. This savings measure is a flexible, registered, general purpose savings vehicle that allows Canadians to earn tax-free investment income. They can watch compounding interest grow in their favour. That gives them a much more secure, dignified retirement.

Canadians get it. Canadians understand. Canadians have embraced the tax-free savings account for their savings needs. It is unfortunate that the members opposite have all but rejected it. Let me remind them of some important facts.

Eleven million Canadians have opened a tax-free savings account, and half of those earn less than $42,000 a year. Sixty percent of those who have contributed to the tax-free savings account and who maximize their account earn less than $60,000. Six hundred thousand seniors, aged 65-plus, with income below $60,000 a year are currently maximizing their tax-free savings account.

Due to popular demand, today's legislation proposes to increase the tax-free savings account annual contribution limit from $5,000 to $10,000, effective 2015 and subsequent years.

While we are making it easier for Canadians to save money, at the same time we want seniors to feel confident that their savings will always be there, or that it will be there for them while they are enjoying their golden years. Seniors are already benefiting from important money saving measures, such as pension income splitting and taking advantage of the tax-free savings account.

The fact is that Canadians are living longer than ever, and we want to ensure that they have a secure, dignified retirement throughout their most senior years. That is why the bill that we debate today, Bill C-59, will reduce the minimum withdrawal rate for registered retirement income funds, or RRIFs.

As some members may know, the rules concerning registered retirement income funds and registered retirement savings plans dictate that RRSPs must be converted to RRIFs by the end of the year in which the RRSP holder reaches 71 years of age. A minimum amount must then be withdrawn. Alternatively, the RRSP savings may be used to purchase an annuity.

Economic action plan 2015 proposes to adjust that RRIF minimum withdrawal rate that applies in respect of ages 71 to 94 to better reflect more recent long-term historical real rates of return and expected inflation. The seniors advocacy group, CARP, says its members welcome this measure. As a result, the new RRIF factors will be substantially lower than the existing factors. By permitting more capital preservation, the new factors will help reduce the risk of outliving one's savings, while ensuring that the tax deferral provided on RRSP and RRIF savings continues to serve a retirement income purpose.

Our government has been consistent in advancing innovative options to allow Canadians to save and manage their finances for a secure and dignified retirement, and our work continues. Currently, 96% of pension plan assets in Canada are in a defined benefit plan, as compared to 71% in the United Kingdom, 42% in the U.S., and 15% in Australia.

That, in part, is why we began consultations on the framework for target benefit plans. These innovative plans would allow businesses to offer a third option, a middle ground between defined benefits and defined contribution models. At the same time, employees would receive a pension with a high degree of retirement income certainty.

Let me be clear. Current pensioners and retirees should be assured that it is not our intention to convert any pensions to target benefit plans without the explicit consent of that individual. A retired person's plan would not be converted unless that individual expressed a desire to convert the pension or agreed to do so. In the interim, those who are retired or saving for retirement will benefit tremendously from targeted tax relief and new optional savings methods, such as the tax-free savings account.

However, while we keep Canada's retirement system strong, I must inform Canada's seniors about a possible new threat to CPP benefits. The Liberal leader has announced that if given the chance, he would fund his favourite infrastructure projects with “...alternative sources of capital, such as pension funds.”

I regret to inform the House that it gets even worse than that. The Liberal leader has confirmed that he would implement the Ontario Liberals' dramatic payroll tax increase on every worker and small business in Canada. For a worker who earns $60,000 a year, the Liberal leader's plan and the Liberals' policy would mean a $1,000 tax hike. It would cost a two-worker family up to $3,200 more per year, whether those workers like it or not.

This mandatory payroll tax increase would kill middle-class jobs and force small businesses to cut hours and wages. According to the Meridian Credit Union, the majority of Ontario's small business owners believe this type of payroll tax would the greatest challenge that they have ever faced. According to a CFIB survey, 69% of employers in Ontario indicated that they would have to freeze or cut salaries. This is even further evidence that now is not the time for untested leadership and Liberal high-tax policies.

In closing, while I have touched on only a few of the measures in today's legislation, they are measures that would help create jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity for all Canadians. Through this legislation, we will maintain and strengthen our advantages by continuing to pursue those strategies that made us so resilient in the first place: responsibility, discipline, and determination. That is what it is going to take.

I appreciate this opportunity to serve with a government that has steered our nation out of the great recession and brought Canada back into the black. Our balanced budget and low-tax plan for jobs and security will strengthen businesses, families, and communities across the country. I urge all hon. members to give their support to this bill.

Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in no way do I want the member to take my question the wrong way.

I believe service animals, as an issue, are very important. The question I have for the member is in terms of overall priority. We will likely spend more time on debate on Bill C-35 than we will on Bill C-59, the budget implementation bill. That is with less than nine days of sitting left, at best, and an election around the corner.

Does the member personally have any issues in regard to spending more time on this bill than on the budget bill?

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I saw that my friend the opposition House leader was out in the foyer of the House of Commons yesterday having a press conference at which he showcased the incredible productivity of the House of Commons during the 41st Parliament. Of course, these were actually Conservative initiatives he had on display, which were passed thanks to our diligent, hard-working, orderly, and productive approach to Parliament. However, I sincerely appreciate the New Democrats' efforts to associate themselves with the record of legislative achievement that our government has demonstrated.

Before getting to the business for the coming few days, I am sure that hon. members and Canadians will have noticed that we have been bringing forward a number of pieces of legislation in recent days, and we will continue to do so for the days to come.

These bills will give effect to important policy initiatives that the Conservative government believes are important for Canada's future. Together they form the beginning of a substantial four-year legislative agenda that our Conservative government will begin to tackle under the Prime Minister's leadership after being re-elected on October 19.

Thanks to the productive, hard-working, and orderly approach that I just spoke about, we have delivered real results on our legislative agenda. In fact, over 90% of the bills that were introduced by our Conservative government between the 2013 Speech from the Throne and the beginning of last month will become law before Parliament rises for the summer.

Now I will go on to the schedule for the coming days.

This afternoon we will continue debating Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, also known as Quanto's law, at third reading. I am optimistic that we can pass it later today so that the other place will have a chance to pass it this spring.

I also hope that we will have an opportunity to have some debate today on Bill S-2, the incorporation by reference in regulations bill.

Tomorrow, we will finish the report stage debate on Bill S-7, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act. Early and forced marriages, honour-based violence and polygamy should not be tolerated on Canadian soil, but unfortunately the opposition disagree and are striving to rob Bill S-7 of its entire content.

On Monday, we will consider Bill C-59, the Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, at third reading. This bill will reduce taxes, deliver benefits to every Canadian family, encourage savings with enhanced tax free savings accounts, lower the tax rates for small businesses, introduce the home accessibility tax credit, expand compassionate leave provisions—and the list goes on.

Tuesday will see the House debate Bill S-7 at third reading.

On Wednesday, we will take up third reading of Bill S-4, Digital Privacy Act, which will provide new protections for Canadians when they surf the web and shop online.

On Thursday I will give priority to any legislation to be considered at the report or third reading stages. On that list will be Bill S-2, the incorporation by reference bill, which would help keep our laws up to date in response to emerging scientific and technical recommendations.

Bill C-50, the citizen voting act, will also be considered once it has been reported back from the procedure and House affairs committee. This legislation would play an important role in accommodating the decision of the Ontario Superior Court should we not have the benefit of the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in time for this year's election.

Report Stage

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as members in this place will know, I am deeply disturbed by the number of measures buried in Bill C-59 that are dangerous for this country and that are extremely anti-democratic, particularly the changes being made post facto, retroactively, to access to information.

I had initially welcomed the changes to protect interns, until I saw the submission from the Canadian Intern Association and realized how much we are failing interns. I asked the hon. minister if she had reviewed the testimony from this organization. Its members certainly are very concerned. I will just quote from their brief:

We submit that the amendments to the Canada Labour Code proposed in Division 7 offer inadequate workplace rights to students, interns, unpaid persons and entry-level employees working for federally regulated employers.

These are some of our most vulnerable and precarious workers, and we are not protecting them.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Bill C-59--Time Allocation Motion

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to speak, since we will not have the opportunity to ask many more questions about Bill C-59.

With regard to this bill, the national media have accused members of all parties of not spending enough time doing the job we were all elected to do in this House. What job would that be? Ensuring that the money we receive from taxpayers across this country is properly spent.

What is sad about the government's approach, with its 100th gag order, is that it undermines what should be our most important job. I am talking about conducting in-depth analyses of legislation and being able to hear from different groups.

I heard a number of my colleagues talk about the Privacy Commissioner or about public servants, who negotiated over the years and are going to unilaterally and illegally lose benefits to which they are entitled and for which they made other concessions. There is something obscene about this whole thing, and it seems as though the whole budget process is taken lightly and is carried out behind closed doors. Could my colleague speak to that?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have mentioned a number of times that every single measure in Bill C-59 was referenced in the budget. We are very proud of the steps that we are taking to support the economy in economic action plan 2015.

Her question was more specific to the access to information. For Canadians who may be watching, and for people in my constituency who may be watching, the main thrust of her question was why we are going the extra measure to get rid of the long gun registry. It was a commitment that our government fulfilled. It was a commitment we made to end the wasteful, ineffective long gun registry once and for all. Measures in the budget allow us to do that. It was still possible to access the outdated registry through access to information.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. The minister of state probably thinks that is a good question because it avoids the real matter currently before the House, namely the time allocation motion.

The question was on the content of Bill C-59.

The Chair always gives leeway but at the same time, this is a blatant direct content of the bill question and not a time allocation question.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. Certainly, I disagree with his question.

Bill C-59 supports this balanced budget that our government has brought forward. Our government has brought forward a low tax plan for Canadians. It is a road map to understand where we are going as a country.

We have a balanced budget, a plan for jobs, a plan for growth, and a plan for security. All of those are part of the budget, our economic action plan 2015. All of the measures in the budget implementation bill were in economic action plan 2015. Many of the measures are tax related and accomplish one main goal: to make certain that we can afford Canadians the prosperity they deserve.

We want to keep money in the pockets of Canadians, seniors, the middle class, all Canadians. The Liberal opposition makes it very clear that it wants to take more in taxes from Canadians. This budget makes it clear that we are continuing down a low tax plan for Canada.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

I move:

That in relation to Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill; and

That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provide provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put, forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-59—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I must advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015, and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.

Report stage

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my absolute pleasure to take part in this debate on Bill C-59. It is a bill that I am very proud of and a bill which will make a big difference to my constituents in Winnipeg South Centre.

To begin, Bill C-59 builds on our government's record of support for Canadian families by keeping taxes low and helping families save more and invest more in their children, their families, their future.

Since 2006, our government has introduced measures to make life much more affordable for families. These measures include: reducing the lowest personal income tax rate and increasing the basic personal amount, so making more income tax-free; cutting the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%; introducing pension income splitting for seniors, which makes a huge difference to so many seniors, and certainly is one thing I hear about in my riding; establishing tax credits to support working low-income individuals and families, public transit users, first time homebuyers. I received a thank you note from someone who had just bought their first house. Especially for families caring for disabled relatives, we have done amazing work in that area.

We have also provided additional support for families with children through the children's art and fitness tax credits, enhancements to the registered education savings plan, and adoption expense tax credits. Most recently, the government has proposed a new family tax cut and enhancements to the universal child care benefit and child care expense deduction.

Canadians of all income levels are benefiting from tax relief introduced by our government with low- and middle-income Canadians receiving proportionally greater relief.

I am going to speak specifically to what economic action plan 2015 has done for families, for seniors and for students.

This year, Canadian families and individuals will receive $37 billion in tax relief and increased benefits as a result of actions we have taken in government since 2006.

For example, a typical two-earner family of four will receive tax relief and increased benefits of up to $6,600 annually in 2015 and every year going forward in perpetuity. This is thanks to measures such as the family tax cut, the universal child care benefit, the goods and services tax rate reduction, the children's fitness tax credit and other new credits, especially the broad-based income tax relief, including the reduction in the lowest personal income tax rate.

By reducing taxes year after year and enhancing benefits to Canadians, our government has given families and individuals greater flexibility to make the choices that are right for them. Families are just like pantyhose: one size does not fit all.

Additionally, while we have been busy cutting taxes for families, we have in turn made sure that federal transfers to our provinces and territories, the transfers that help pay for what Canadians cherish so much, education and health care, have continued to grow. In fact, including the Canada health transfer and the Canada social transfer, this year, 2015-16, the amount is going to be almost $68 billion. This is an all-time high, and all the more impressive, it is at the same time as we brought the budget into balance.

This economic action plan is also very supportive of seniors who are already benefiting from important money-saving measures such as pension income splitting and of course, their TFSAs.

Bill C-59 will introduce new measures that give seniors freedom and more flexibility when it comes to managing their retirement income. For example, our government will be reducing the minimum withdrawal factors for registered retirement income funds. This will make a huge difference for many seniors in my riding of Winnipeg South Centre and across Canada. By permitting more capital preservation for our seniors, the new factors will help to reduce the risk of outliving one's savings, while ensuring that the tax deferral provided on RRSP and RRIF savings continues to serve a retirement income purpose.

I am also very pleased that our government is introducing the new home accessibility tax credit. This proposed 15% tax credit will apply on up to $10,000 of eligible home renovation expenditures per year for seniors and for people with disabilities all across Canada. Eligible expenditures will be for improvements that allow a senior or a person who is eligible for the disability tax credit to be more mobile, safe and functional within their homes. We will also be providing up to $42 million over five years to help establish the Canadian centre for aging and brain health innovation. We have allocated $37 million annually to extend employment insurance compassionate care benefits from the current six weeks to six months as of January 2016.

Our government continues to invest significant funding in training and education for students. Federal support for post-secondary education amounts to $10 billion annually and includes financial assistance, such as Canada student loans, Canada student grants, the Canada apprentice loan, and specific programming targeted to first nations and Inuit students. There are also programs designed to enhance skills training among specific groups, including through our youth employment strategy, through our opportunities fund for persons with disabilities, and of course, for aboriginal peoples, through investments of over $440 million annually.

In addition to ensuring Canadians have the skills they need, we also invest in labour market programming, which helps to bridge the current needs of our labour market with the future evolution of our labour force. In 2014-15, the government transferred $2.7 billion to support labour market programming, including $500 million for provinces and territories through the Canada job fund agreements, which include the Canada job grant.

The government has also taken action to support the labour market participation of older Canadians who wish to remain in the workforce by providing $75 million to renew the targeted initiative for older workers, providing assistance to improve the ability and employability of unemployed workers age 55 to 64.

This budget builds on existing measures to help people find jobs and help jobs find people. It commits to working with provinces and territories to facilitate the harmonization of apprenticeship training and certification requirements in targeted Red Seal trades. Some members know that Red Seal trades include mechanics, electricians, carpenters, and even bakers. Our government, since last year, has made it so apprentices in these trades have had access to over $100 million in interest-free federal loans each year.

Overall, Canada saw a 20% increase in registrations in apprenticeship programs between 2006 and 2012. Based on that success, Bill C-59 will provide $1 million over five years to Employment and Social Development Canada's Red Seal secretariat to promote the adoption of the Blue Seal certification program across Canada. Blue Seal certification recognizes business training among certified tradespeople. Currently offered in a few provincial jurisdictions, the certification can help increase the chances of business success for entrepreneurial tradespeople.

Finally, our government has fulfilled a long-standing commitment of increasing the annual contribution limits of tax-free savings accounts to $10,000. This will be helpful to all Canadians, including families, young people and seniors. TFSAs help Canadians save at every stage of life, whether for retirement, starting a business, or buying their very first home. By doubling the TFSA limit, which when we introduced the TFSA in 2009 was $5,000 annually, we are empowering Canadians to save even more of their own money for their own priorities. We hope that more Canadians will take advantage of the tax-free savings account going forward. Of the nearly 11 million individuals who already have a TFSA, 2.7 million are seniors.

I am extremely proud of our government and the continued commitments it has made to Canadian families, Canadian students and Canadian seniors.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Report Stage Motions--Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Before resuming debate, the Chair wishes to make a ruling on the motion by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on a point of order earlier today.

Having delivered a decision on the selection of report stage motions for Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, the Chair would like to address the concerns raised by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands concerning report stage motions Nos. 49 and 116, standing in her name on the notice paper.

I would like to thank the hon. member for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his comments.

The member's main point of contention is that her proposed amendments could not have been presented before the deadline adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance because they flow directly from witness testimony that took place after the deadline passed.

As evidenced by first having written a detailed letter and now having raised the matter again in the form of a point of order, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands clearly feels that she was not provided an opportunity to have certain amendments considered by the committee. She feels this circumstance is exceptional, and on that basis, the House as a whole should decide whether Bill C-59 should be amended in the fashion she is proposing.

In deciding the matter I must be guided by our long-established practice in relation to the Chair’s authority to select report stage motions. A note to Standing Order 76.1(5) says:

The Speaker will not normally select for consideration any motion previously ruled out of order in committee [and] will normally only select motions that were not or could not be presented in committee.

At page 783, the authors of House of Commons Procedure and Practice set out the general principle with respect to the selection of report stage motions:

As a general principle, the Speaker seeks to forestall debate on the floor of the House which is simply a repetition of the debate in committee. [T]he Speaker will normally only select motions in amendment that could not have been presented in committee.

Both these excerpts point to an essential truth about report stage: mainly that it is not meant to be another opportunity for detailed consideration of the clauses of the bill. For this reason, the Chair rigorously limits the types of motions that could be considered at report stage. In so doing, the Chair rests on the presumption that a committee's clause-by-clause consideration provides ample opportunity to scrutinize the clauses of the bill and have amendments considered accordingly.

The Chair is not convinced by the argument that the rationale for selection of report stage motions can be rooted so exclusively in anyone's particular testimony and qualify as an exceptional circumstance that the Chair ought to consider.

While the Chair understands the member's specific argument about deadlines with respect to submissions of amendments for Bill C-59, I also know that committees have shown great flexibility in the past, not only about deadlines, but more generally in how they consider amendments in clause-by-clause. In fact, one such example of that flexibility is the very process that committees adopted, allowing members of non-recognized parties to have their amendments considered in committee.

I know the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is one of the more active members of this place when it comes to clause-by-clause. In this regard it would have helped establish for the Chair the degree to which it truly was impossible to have these amendments considered in committee. If she had pointed to demonstrable attempts to bring before the committee her amendments, her arguments might have been more persuasive.

As such, the Chair cannot agree with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and finds that Motions Nos. 49 and 116 should not be selected on the basis of exceptional significance. I would like to thank the hon. member for having raised this matter.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Motions in amendment

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have added over $120 billion to the national debt. They inherited the best fiscal situation of any incoming government in the history of Canada, a $13-billion surplus. They actually spent through that and, through a combination of their tax and fiscal policy, put Canada into deficit even before the global financial crisis in the fall of 2008, and then went on to rack up record levels of national debt in Canada, including the largest deficits in Canadian history.

That is the fact on the Conservative's shoddy record of fiscal mismanagement.

I am rising today to speak to the government's budget bill, C-59. For years, the Conservatives have crossed the line in what is acceptable in a functioning democracy as a government in the of respect for Parliament. It is not only how they have now normalized the use of massive omnibus bills, they regularly shut down debate in the House, they prorogue Parliament multiple times, they use committees as branch plants of minister's offices, but this legislation would go further than we have ever seen before. This legislation contains something so egregious it is shocking, even for the Conservative government.

The government, in this legislation, is actually trying to end an OPP investigation into the illegal destruction of documents. It would do this by retroactively making acts which were illegal at the time legal. It would effectively stop an OPP, or police, investigation into the RCMP, the very people we rely upon to uphold the law. The government has refused to say who in the government, whether it was the Minister of Public Safety, ordered the RCMP to break the law. With Bill C-59, Canadians may never find out.

Imagine retroactively making what was illegal at the time legal and allowing for the destruction of evidence associated with the wrongdoing. This is absolutely shocking.

I want to be clear. I believe the RCMP was given no choice by the government. It was given its marching orders. The legislation in this budget bill is actually being used by the Conservative government to try to cover up its crime.

In April 2012, the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act came into force. It called for the destruction of certain records in the long gun registry. However, it was flawed in that it made no mention of the Access to Information Act. That omission meant that the records could not be destroyed until after any pre-existing access to information cases were closed.

In April 2012, the Information Commissioner wrote to the Minister of Public Safety, in his role as the head of the RCMP, and reminded him of this legal commitment. On May 2, 2012, the public safety minister acknowledged the commissioner's letter and promised that the RCMP would abide by the access to information law in this matter.

This is the point at which the Conservative government could have gone back to Parliament to fix the legislation. It could have respected the law and our democratic institutions and sought Parliament's permission. Instead, somebody in the Conservative government ordered the RCMP to destroy the records and, as such, break the law. In October 2012, the RCMP did just that, destroying the records.

The Information Commissioner conducted an investigation and concluded that the RCMP destroyed the records knowing they were the subject of a request under the Access to Information Act. That is against the law.

In late March of this year, she referred the matter to the Attorney General. How did the government react? Instead of immediately referring the matter to an outside police organization for action, the reaction of the Conservatives was to cover up the crime.

The Conservatives' solution was this legislation, a budget bill. Imagine a budget bill being used to effectively and retroactively change the law to make the crime legal, erasing any liability for the people involved. The government has since referred the matter to the Ontario Provincial Police for an independent investigation into the matter. However, it will be hard for it to investigate when this law one past erases all liability for everyone involved and permits the government to effectively oversee the destruction of evidence of previous wrongdoing. Canadians deserve to know what happened and who broke the law.

At committee, I introduced amendments to allow the OPP's investigation to continue. My amendments would have delayed the elimination of liability and stopped the destruction of evidence. Records would have been protected from destruction “if there are reasonable grounds to believe that they could afford evidence of an act or omission that constitutes an offence under an Act of Parliament.”. These amendments were not about trying to save the long gun registry, they were about protecting only those records that provided evidence of an illegal act. The Conservatives quietly voted against the amendments and downplayed the whole affair. In their words, Bill C-59 simply closes a bureaucratic loophole.

I agree with the Information Commissioner when she says, “Bill C-59 is not an attempt to close a loophole; but rather it is an attempt to create a black hole”. The Information Commissioner has recently gone to the Federal Court to file a preservation order to stop the Conservative government from destroying evidence of wrongdoing. Members should let that sink in for a moment and think of the seriousness of what is going on here. An officer of Parliament has gone to court to stop the government from trying to cover up an illegal act.

I would like to go from this abuse of power and blatant corruption by the Conservative government in this budget implementation act to discussing some other measures in the bill that should also be considered offensive in terms of a functioning democracy.

There are measures in the bill which are almost certainly unconstitutional, such as Division 20, which is connected to the government's sick leave and disability programs. The government is using these measures to play politics and to deliberately pick a fight with the unions in the lead-up to an election. The Conservatives are circumventing the collective bargaining process in an attempt to unilaterally impose their will on government workers. They are trying to pretend that workers do not have legal rights. The government's behaviour is poisoning the well and will make it harder for future governments to achieve labour agreements and peace with labour unions in Canada.

We have also heard some very serious concerns about Division 3, which includes measures to extend privilege to patent or trade-mark agents and their clients. In the words of the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, it “raises complex issues and would have significant implications not only for the patent and trade-marks system, but also for the legal profession, other professions, and for the administration of justice.”

The government is using omnibus legislation to bundle together hundreds of unrelated measures into a single bill. Many of these changes have nothing to do with the budget and do not belong in a budget bill. However, the Conservatives do not care about respecting Parliament. Instead of introducing proper legislation that allows for meaningful input from the public, the Conservatives combine an overwhelming amount of unrelated changes in legislation into a single bill. They do this in order to limit debate and scrutiny, and ram the changes through Parliament.

There are some measures in the bill which are actually related to the budget, such as the increase to the TFSA limits and income splitting, two measures that are disproportionately good for the wealthy but do not do enough for the middle class.

The Liberal plan for the middle class would cut the taxes for middle-class families. The Liberal plan for the middle class would introduce a new Canada child benefit that would provide middle-class families in Canada making $90,000 per year with two children a real break. They would get $2,500 more than they are getting from the Conservatives right now. Families making $45,000 per year with two children would be $4,000 better off than they are right now. Single parents would benefit from the Liberal leader's plan for a Canada child benefit. We would do more for the families that need the help the most. We would be able to afford to do that by doing a little less for the families that do not need the help. We do it in the context of respecting Parliament and the laws that govern our country. That is what a Liberal government would do to restore fairness and respect for the rule of law to our country.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House and discuss Bill C-59, which would implement certain provisions of economic action plan 2015.

First, let me remind the House and Canadians who are watching that we live in what continue to be challenging times. Around the world, many nations, including some of our friends and allies, struggle to achieve fiscal security. Global growth coming out of the great recession has been lacklustre. Geopolitical uncertainty continues to hobble the recovery. Of course, the dramatic plunge in oil prices has taken its toll. It has taken its toll here and in many other countries around the world.

Still, the news for Canada is, by and large, positive and good. This is thanks to the strong leadership of our Prime Minister and our low-tax balanced budget plan. Just last month, Canada's economy added nearly 59,000 jobs, almost all of them in the private sector and most full-time jobs, which raises the number of jobs created since June 2009 to more than 1.2 million jobs.

As any economist would tell the official opposition, no single labour force survey should be interpreted on its own, given the volatility of the job market. However, I must point out that over the last six months, total employment has averaged gains of 15,200 per month, and over the last year, employment has averaged gains of 16,000 per month.

The facts are clear. Canada's economic action plan is working. Canada has demonstrated the best economic performance among the G7 countries over this recovery period. The IMF, or International Monetary Fund, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development expect Canada's growth, already ahead of our peers during the recovery, to continue to be solid. Of course, we have a balanced budget. All the while, the government has maintained its priority: putting money back into the pockets of hard-working Canadian families and hard-working businessmen and businesswomen. Therefore, it is not a coincidence that we have returned to a balanced budget while maintaining the lowest tax burden on Canadians in half a century.

That brings me to economic action plan 2015. Now that the budget is balanced, our government can continue to focus on what matters most to Canadians. Those priorities are, one, helping Canadians and communities prosper; two, ensuring the security of Canadians and protecting Canadians from the threat of terrorism at home and abroad; and three, supporting jobs and growth by creating an economic environment that allows businesses to thrive, fostering trade, and making essential investments in world-class advanced research and infrastructure.

Ever since Canadians first elected and trusted our government to place Canada on the path toward growth and prosperity, our approach has been clear and consistent: take as little as possible and give as much as possible. From families with young children to seniors, small businesses, and beyond, we have followed through. We have reduced taxes more than 180 times since 2006 and we have no intention of stopping now.

Bill C-59 goes even further to help families make ends meet with the following measures: implementing the family tax cut, which would allow a high-income spouse to, in effect, transfer up to $50,000 of taxable income to a spouse in a lower tax bracket, saving tax dollars for that family; increasing the universal child care benefit for children under age 6 and expanding it to children between the ages of 6 and 17; and increasing the child care expense deduction dollar limits by $1,000.

This is all good news for Canadian families, but both opposition parties have opposed much of our tax reductions. The Liberal leader has said that he would reverse the family tax cut because it costs the government too much. Whose money does he think this is?

By promising to adopt the Ontario Liberal dramatic payroll tax hike, the Liberal leader also promised he would force money directly off middle-class workers' paycheques, without their consent. A worker earning $60,000 a year would take a mandatory $1,000 pay cut with the Liberal plan.

Meanwhile, the NDP wants to raise the price of gas and groceries with a carbon tax. While raising government revenues is its priority, our priority is helping families make ends meet.

Another priority I would like to touch on for a moment is our government's responsibility to ensure safety and security of Canadians and defend the nation's sovereignty. Canadians want to feel safe and secure in their homes. They want to feel safe online. They want to feel safe in their communities.

Our government understands the dangers, and we are determined to respond to those dangers. Today's legislation includes several measures to ensure the continued security of Canadians. First, protecting the integrity of our borders is essential to keeping Canadians safe and secure, while facilitating economic activity.

In economic action plan 2014, we highlighted the importance of biometric immigration screening as an effective means to combat identity fraud and abuse of Canada's immigration system, including helping to identify known criminals before they come to Canada. To further improve the security and integrity of Canada's immigration system, economic action plan 2015 proposes to expand the use of biometric screening to verify the identity of all visa-required travellers seeking entrance to Canada. By helping to prevent inadmissible individuals from entering our country, expanding biometric screening would help facilitate legitimate travel to Canada while protecting the safety and security of our Canadian citizens.

Finally, we remain unflagging in our support for jobs and growth. It only makes sense that small businesses the drivers of job creation, receive as much tax relief as we can provide them. After all, they account for 99% of all businesses across our country and they employ half of all the working men and women in the private sector. A business that spends its time focused on its own success, rather than handing over to the government excessive amounts of its profits or complying with onerous and unnecessary red tape, is one that is creating jobs to benefit hard-working Canadians.

Today's legislation continues to break new ground. It would reduce the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019. That is the largest tax rate cut for small businesses in more than 25 years. For example, for a small business with taxable income of $500,000, as a result of this tax cut and other measures that we have brought forward since 2006 in previous legislation, the amount of federal tax paid would be nearly 50% lower than since we were elected in 2006. That is nearly a 50% reduction in taxes that these small businesses could use to create jobs and reinvest in their businesses, in innovation, or in research, or perhaps even hire extra staff for extra positions.

It is very unfortunate that the Liberal leader opposed our newest small business tax cut. We know the NDP does as well. The changes we have made would help enhance the ability of small businesses across Canada to retain earnings, grow their businesses, and create jobs.

To sum up, in an uncertain world, Canada's economic action plan is working. It is creating jobs and it is keeping the economy growing. Now is not the time for risky schemes and untested leadership. By staying the course and sticking to the proven leadership that we have with our Prime Minister, Canada remains on track to a very bright future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands.

It is interesting, with these omnibus bills that are notionally attached to the budget, that we spend so much of our time talking about non-budget things, because that is the majority of what sits in the bill. That is also true for this Bill C-59. It has 150 pages and 270 different clauses changing all sorts of laws and rules, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with the Canadian economy.

One would wonder if a government is actually interested in helping out Canadians who are out of work, the 1.3 million-odd Canadians. The youth unemployment rate is 1.5 points higher than it was a year ago, and we have had more than 16 months of terrible growth rates in Canada, never mind the innovation gap. The Prime Minister recently committed to decarbonizing the Canadian economy in 85 years' time.

I am wondering what my friend's assessment is. There has been a global surge in clean tech investments, outpacing investments in carbon energy, globally speaking, and many of the provinces and cities have moved forward in Canada. Yet the lack of leadership, the lack of thoughtfulness about this pressing environmental concern, is only surpassed by the ignorance toward the economic opportunities that exist for Canadians to retrofit their homes, to move to and from work in more environmentally friendly ways, and to go to work at places that are more conscious of our impact on the planet.

My question is of a financial nature, yet wedded within the ecological questions that we all must ask ourselves. The Prime Minister has now committed that he thinks carbon is a problem and he is going to do something about it—or not him, but 85 years from now someone is going to do something about it.

I am wondering about my friend's assessment of Canada's performance to this point in getting onboard that light rail train of opportunity that is expressed by the clean tech sector globally.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak at report stage. I understand I am speaking to my amendments that were the deletion amendments and that substantive amendments that I put forward still await a ruling.

As I have the floor now, just in brief response to the point made by the government House leader that he was somewhat caught unaware by my point of order, I have checked with my staff on the number of times the government House leader has risen on points of order directed at restricting my rights as a member of Parliament. I have not received any advance notice from the government House leader. Not that I was in any way suggesting tit-for-tat, but I did not realize it was a convention in this place to give the government House leader more notice of my points of order than he has ever given me.

Turning to the substance of Bill C-59, I appreciate the remarks from my friend from Skeena—Bulkley Valley. The substance of the bill needs to be put forward again clearly that this is an omnibus budget bill once again.

This is an omnibus budget bill that amends 20 different Canadian laws. These are 20 completely different things.

Therefore, there is no single unified purpose, which is the underlying principle of why we would ever have omnibus legislation in this country. Under this administration, the use of omnibus budget bills is unprecedented in Canadian parliamentary history, as is the use of time allocation. We have never had any other administration ever put forward so much legislation through the form of omnibus budget bills with sections that are unrelated to each other and equally unrelated to the budget.

This one is not as lengthy as others. Certainly, Bill C-38 had over 400 pages and was followed by Bill C-45 at over 400 pages. In earlier times, when the Conservatives were a minority, they brought forward 800 pages of omnibus budget legislation in 2008. I think it was over 900 pages in 2009. In terms of page length, this one is just under 160 pages. It is less lengthy but no less complex than previous omnibus budget bills. As a result, it has had inadequate study. It was pushed through committee and pushed through this place, with time allocation at every stage.

In looking at it in any level of detail, I think it is worth reviewing with other members of this House because we have had so little time to study it, how many different sections of laws are affected by this.

It affects parliamentary precinct security. That is one thing I want to return to because it is a fundamental and very important constitutional question of who is in charge of security in this place.

It changes the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA.

It makes amendments to the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, a good piece of legislation that we had been waiting for for some time, which really deserves its own care and attention through this place.

It makes changes to the Trust and Loan Companies Act.

It makes changes to the Public Service Labour Relations Act, which are quite egregious in that they pre-empt collective bargaining. I will stop at this point to say that this pre-empts collective bargaining to make changes to sick leave provisions for our very hard-working federal civil servants.

The changes that would occur to the National Energy Board Act would change the maximum duration of licences for the exportation of natural gas issued under the NEB Act.

It goes on and on in terms of the number of distinct and different pieces of legislation, none with a relation to each other, none receiving adequate study.

I will add one anecdote. I presented amendments at committee on a previous omnibus budget bill. It was not until I presented the amendments that the committee realized that there had been no witnesses on that particular section. None of the committee members remembered having read it, so my amendments could not be adequately discussed because nobody really knew about that section of the omnibus bill. There were just too many sections to give it adequate care and attention.

Let me just touch on some of the ones that are concerning.

I certainly was concerned to see the changes to the Copyright Act. These are changes that benefit the music industry, particularly the large U.S. companies, not the songwriters and not the musicians of Canada, by changing the copyright for a song recording from 50 to 70 years.

There are also changes in division 9. I mention these briefly but without describing them. The natural gas exportation licence would be extended to 40 years, up from 25. That is quite a significant change. It was opposed in committee by the witnesses from West Coast Environmental Law. I will just quote from their testimony. They said:

It is quite possible that something thought to be a good idea today may not, in 25 years' time, with the advent of climate change, economic shifts, an increasingly harmed environment, and other potentially unforeseen alterations in the landscape...

be considered a good idea in four years' time. These are significant changes that did not receive enough study.

We heard from the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, and I completely agree, about the precarious nature of interns working in the federal civil service. All parties have at various times said that they want to do something to ensure that unpaid internships and student work within the government are protected properly. The access is going to go in that direction, but as a submission from the Canadian Intern Association made clear, much more needs to be done if these workers are not to be exploited in the system.

Given the time I have at the moment, I will move on to other areas of the bill that really should have had greater study. The biometrics piece is one that came out with witness testimony at the very last minute. It was actually on the morning that we moved to clause-by-clause. We realized how sweeping the changes are in terms of collecting biometric information. They might even apply to people who want to come here as tourists, given the changes that were made in the fall of 2012 in Bill C-45. For people seeking to come here on vacation, if they are not in a country that requires a visa, these potential tourists would also have to apply to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for permission to come to Canada. The sweeping nature of the changes under biometrics information could apply to tourists, even though I do not believe that that is the government's intent.

Let me just make sure that in the three minutes remaining, I concentrate on the two most egregious changes in Bill C-59.

I mentioned earlier the change in security in the parliamentary precinct. There could not be a more serious issue for those of us assembled in this place. We had the attack and the tragic murder of Nathan Cirillo on October 22, 2014, and what could have been a far more devastating tragedy had the security team of the House of Commons, the RCMP, and the Ottawa Police had not acted as they did and ended that crisis.

The conclusion being reached that we need a unified security team is exactly right. We do need to ensure that the outside grounds and the inside of Parliament are all protected by people who are in one unified system. The large question, and one that has been rushed through this place without adequate study, is which of the security agencies should be in control. It is deeply embedded in parliamentary tradition. The first reference to this that I could find goes back to the year 1500. It is deeply embedded in parliamentary tradition that you, Mr. Speaker, are the person, the entity and the office that protects the security of the members here.

A change to give control to the RCMP, which ultimately reports to the Prime Minister or to the executive part of government, is a fundamental change that is unconstitutional. However, because of the privileges that surround Parliament itself, it is unlikely that we will ever be able to challenge this in a court.

It should not be rushed through this place. It is a fundamental change in the relationship between the Speaker, the members of Parliament who look to the Speaker for the protection of their rights, and the risk of an abuse of that authority to impede access to this place, based on party membership. I am not going to suggest that it exists with any particular prime minister. There is a significant risk that remains for potential future prime ministers if we do not change this.

The last point I want to raise is best expressed in the words of the Information Commissioner of Canada about the changes to undo laws in effect. She said:

These proposed changes would retroactively quash Canadians’ right of access and the government’s obligations under the Access to Information Act. It will effectively erase history.

...[it] is not an attempt to close a loophole; but rather it is an attempt to create a black hole.

Such changes should not be allowed in any democracy. Bill C-59 should therefore be defeated.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are 149 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-59. All motions, except Motion No. 49 and Motion No. 116, have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.

Motions Nos. 1 to 48, 50 to 115, and 117 to 149 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 48, 50 to 115 and 117 to 149 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Bill C-59--Selection of Report Stage Amendments

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I thank the hon. government House leader for his intervention on this.

I have taken note of the point of order raised by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands concerning report stage Motions Nos. 49 and 116 for Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures. As I mentioned, I have also taken good note of the intervention made by the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on this matter.

Given that we are set to begin the debate at report stage of this bill, I will put aside those two amendments and will return with a ruling as soon as possible concerning the specific point of order.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as you will know from a letter that was delivered to your office yesterday, I seek the opportunity to rise on a point of order to speak to the pending decision that you will be making on the appropriate nature of the amendments that I have tabled in relation to report stage for the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-59.

The order to which I refer is Standing Order 76.1(5), which of course empowers the Speaker to select or combine amendments as he or she thinks fit. In the Annotated Standing Orders, there is additional guidance that the “Speaker will normally select only motions that were not or could not be presented in committee”. It also states, “For greater certainty, the purpose of this Standing Order is, primarily, to provide Members who were not members of the committee with an opportunity to have the House consider specific amendments they wish to propose.”

I will not take much of your time or that of the assembled members in reviewing all the events that led to the concern that I am now expressing. However, I am sure members will recall, and certainly you will, Mr. Speaker, that in exercising my right as the member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands, recognizing that the rules, as they exist to this point today, if you seek guidance from our rules of parliamentary procedure, allow a member such as myself, a member of a recognized party with fewer than 12 members, or an independent member of Parliament, the opportunity at report stage to do something that members belonging to the larger parties no longer have, which is to put forward amendments that are substantive at report stage.

The reason for this rule came from, I suppose we would have to call it the evolution of rules in this place, which has a consistent trend line. The evolution of rules has trended toward larger parties suppressing the rights of smaller parties, and in this particular instance, of a large majority party actually attempting to suppress the rights of an individual member.

This was done through a series of decisions. The hon. government House leader tried at one point in late 2012 to put forward a novel notion, and I was specifically cited in the government House leader's complaint, that all the amendments by the member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands should be lumped together, that the Speaker should pull one at random, put it to a test vote, and if that fails, none of the rest of my amendments should be put forward at report stage.

In your ruling on December 12, 2012, you put that notion quickly to rest in pointing out that that would rather defeat the purpose of legislative review. It would seem to suggest that might makes right and why bother to study any amendments at all, or even to put legislation through scrutiny.

In making that ruling, Mr. Speaker, you made specific note of two previous Speakers' rulings on this matter. Speaker Milliken, whom you cited with authority from March 29, 2007, pointed out “neither the political realities of the moment nor the sheer force of numbers should force us to set aside the values inherent in the parliamentary conventions and procedures by which we govern our deliberations.” Further, you cited former Speaker John Fraser from October 10, 1989, when he said, “We are a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called executive democracy, nor a so-called administrative democracy.”

In making that ruling, the clear guidance was in the following words:

Accordingly, unless and until new satisfactory ways of considering the motions of all members to amend bills in committee are found, the Chair intends to continue to protect the rights of independent members to propose amendments at report stage.

That is your role, Mr. Speaker. At page 307 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, we find this clear statement of the duty of the Speaker:

It is the responsibility of the Speaker to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an institution.

In making that finding, Mr. Speaker, you said, “Unless and until new satisfactory ways” have been found. I believe it must have been concocted in the Prime Minister's Office because by the following fall, identical motions appeared in all of the committees that study legislation, and each identical motion operated under the fiction that it came forward from a Conservative member of that committee to create the new rubric under which I am now complying, which says that my amendments must be tabled as those of all other members of parties under 12 members or independents, within 48 hours before the committee moves on to clause-by-clause stage.

I have been operating under that. At every stage I tend to remind the chairs of committees before whom I present amendments that they are deemed to have been presented. I am given generally about 60 seconds per amendment to explain the purpose of the amendment.

As unsatisfactory as that process is, in the case of these amendments, this is the crux of the case I put to you, Mr. Speaker, to please show flexibility. I know the committees are in charge of their own process, but in this case I am asking you to rule in relation to report stage.

An opportunity that cannot be used is surely no opportunity at all, satisfactory or otherwise. In this case, on June 2 at 9 a.m. all my amendments were due on omnibus budget Bill C-59. Subsequent to that deadline, 10 more outside witnesses appeared, as well as the Privacy Commissioner and the minister himself. Brand new, novel issues were raised by those witnesses. My amendments attempt to deal with new issues that were raised after the deadline by which I had to submit my amendments.

Unlike other members of a committee, I have no ability, nor does any other member in my situation, to put forward new amendments to deal with the new information. In other words, the ability of every member of Parliament in this place to do their work requires being able to weigh in substantively, and I hope helpfully, on amendments at report stage.

In this instance, Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to please consider in your discretion the rubric under which I am working. Under these individual motions, passed by all these different committees, which in some cases have meant that I literally race from committee to committee to submit my amendments in time and to speak to them because committee meetings are often concurrent, in the case of Bill C-59, yet again another omnibus budget bill, there was no reasonable opportunity to submit the amendments that I have included.

I have not included any amendments that had an opportunity before committee, although they were rejected. I have put forward only amendments that were not possible to have been imagined, constructed or drafted, because the witnesses who raised the issues testified before the committee after the deadline for the submission of my amendments.

Motion in Amendment

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-2 is probably not the most accessible bill for the community and the people who are watching at home. From the beginning, I have been calling this bill the sleeper of this legislature.

For one thing, it has not garnered much attention, which is worrisome, and for another, it originated in the Senate. I believe that we are already starting off on the wrong foot when a bill that will have such a major impact on our future practices comes from the Senate.

That being said, this will likely be one of my last speeches in the House as the justice critic for the official opposition, given the justice agenda from now until the end of this Parliament on June 23. I would therefore like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Justice, particularly those from the New Democratic Party and my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île, the sponsor for the recommendation we made to our colleagues regarding Bill S-2. She did an excellent job, given that work on this bill was not the easiest way to jump into her role as deputy critic. I would like to congratulate and thank her.

In recent years, the justice agenda has been rather onerous. Since you were once the justice critic for the official opposition, Mr. Speaker, you know what I am talking about. I would also like to thank the leader of the NDP for putting his trust in me. That is why I took the analysis of each bill very seriously and why I have often spoken out against the government's attempts to short-circuit democratic debates and in-depth examinations of bills. The decisions that we make in the area of justice can have even more significant implications for the people we represent.

Bill S-2 is a fine example because it did not attract too much attention. I was interviewed once about Bill S-2, and it was by Blacklock's Reporter, which took the time to analyze this bill and saw the same problems we did.

I find it even more important to point out that, when elected in 2011, I was appointed the co-chair of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations by our then leader, the great Jack Layton. I have to admit that at first I wondered about the committee's mandate. However, I understood just how important the committee was.

I also saw first-hand the systematic resistance of some departments, which take an eternity to answer the questions posed by the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. That was what had the greatest impact on my position on Bill S-2. Sometimes they were basic questions, mainly about incorrect language usage or contradictions between the French and English texts, which creates confusion and can lead to legal disputes. I truly appreciated what I call my internship with the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, because it taught me the importance of regulations.

As some members mentioned, we sometimes forget that the Minister of Justice must certify that any government bill, whether from the Senate or the government, complies with the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The same should be true for regulations. My colleague who spoke before me spoke about the importance of modernization. I agree with her. There are 30,000 pages of regulations every year. It is painstaking work to sort through all of that. However, members of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations and officials—whom I want to commend today for the difficult job they do—examine these issues and ensure that the regulations are correct, compliant and accessible, for the benefit of our constituents and for all Canadians across the country. People need to know what is going on and what could be expected of them. I agree that we need to find a way to modernize this.

However, modernizing means something else to this government. This may ultimately be where the Conservatives pay the price for their sins, if I can put it that way. Members on the official opposition benches are deeply distrustful of this government. Why? Because this government has been secretive. It has tried all kinds of ways to circumvent democratic debate. It does not accept disagreement with its opinions. It practically sees any question from the opposition as a form of treason. In short, it prevents us from doing the job we were elected to do. The Conservatives should not be surprised that we do not want to give them a way to speed things up or to put these issues in the hands of people we cannot control or oversee to ensure they are doing their job properly.

When a public servant like Mr. Schmidt goes to the Federal Court against his employer, the Department of Justice, to say that he was told to cut corners and ignore the Constitution and the charter, that worries me. Now the government wants the power to regulate by reference, which is the simplest way. There is also a retroactivity clause, as my colleague from Toronto—Danforth mentioned earlier. In committee, we were basically told that it was already being done—as if the fact that something previously prohibited is being done should justify the fact that they are rushing into this approach.

Currently, if regulation by reference happens, it is authorized or should have been authorized by the enabling legislation. We learned that that was not always the case. That is why the government put clause 18.7 in the Senate bill. That clause includes a retroactivity provision. That reminds me of what was in Bill C-59 about destroying information in registries.

What people do not see is that regulations can go very far. Let us look at each kind of bill: government bills, private members' bills and Senate bills. A power is always given to the appropriate minister, the authority to adopt regulations. The minister himself can delegate the power to take action to a senior official. In short, if we also decide to allow them to adopt regulations that come from other countries—which would come to us in a language that is not ours and where bilingualism will surely be short-circuited—one might have some serious concerns about this bill.

What I am saying to my colleagues in the House is that there is no urgency here. Bill S-2 deserves to be studied further and should be considered with greater openness. It would be nice if the government could look at the comments and listen to and consider the criticisms instead of simply slamming the door and saying that this bill is the only way.

I encourage my colleagues to take a short strategic pause to look carefully at Bill S-2, given that it could have enormous ramifications that will be rather serious in some cases.

Finance

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Building on what Mr. Brison said, it's very clear to me and the Green Party of Canada that, whether it's based on ideology or some sort of strategy, the government is trying to pick a fight with unions.

Our amendments try to deal with getting around the incredible anti-labour position taken here, which is attempting to circumvent unions and our obligations under the Public Service Labour Relations Act. Incredibly, Bill C-59 imposes the government's bargaining position on public service unions before they ever even have the chance to sit down and negotiate.

It's not the right thing to do. It's not the smart thing to do. I really hope the government will rethink this part of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Sure. The ruling is that this amendment seeks to amend section 440 of the Bank Act. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on pages 766-7, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.” Since section 440 of the Bank Act is not being amended by Bill C-59, it is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

That deals with NDP-15.

Shall clauses 232 to 252 carry?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting back to order. We will return to our consideration of Bill C-59.

We will move to division 19.

(On clause 232)

We have one amendment for this division. I'm sure it will not be a surprise, but I have a ruling on that amendment.

We have NDP-15. We'll let Mr. Rankin speak briefly to that, and then I will have a ruling.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Does the government have an opinion? You can certainly offer an opinion as to whether or not the passage of Bill C-59 would result in the termination of the OPP's investigation.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

This morning I asked the RCMP whether they expected division 18 of Bill C-59 would effectively terminate the OPP's criminal investigation into the RCMP. The RCMP suggested we ask Justice officials. Can you answer that question?

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

This is on PV-50. This is a quote from Brent Rathgeber's blog:

Amazingly, Division 18 of Part 3 amends the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act to state that they do not apply to records and copies of records that were destroyed under the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act. This provision is made retroactive to October 25, 2011 (the day on which the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act was introduced into Parliament).

This is quite extraordinary. It is alleged that while Parliament was debating ending the long gun registry, the RCMP proactively began destroying documents. If this provision passes, the RCMP members would be immune from prosecution based on the retroactive enforcement provision.

According to Mr. Rathgeber he was and still is totally opposed to the long-gun registry, but this disregard and disrespect for Parliament is infuriating.

This amendment changes the date for coming into force to the date of royal assent, instead of first reading.

Bill C-59 tries to make anyone who destroys the records from the long-gun registry immune from prosecution. This amendment adds “the lawful“ to only make those who did it legally be immune. It also deletes the section granting immunity to people who destroyed the records between first reading and royal assent. On this one, Mr. Rathgeber and I are in agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Brison.

I'll do the ruling on LIB-2, and then we'll go to LIB-3.

For LIB-2, the amendment seeks to amend Bill C-59. This amendment would result in a greater number of individuals being eligible for the benefit in question.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states the following on pages 767 and 768:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

Therefore, in the opinion of the chair, the amendment would increase eligibility to said benefit, which would impose an additional charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible. That applies to LIB-2.

LIB-3 is admissible, so if anyone would like to speak further to LIB-3....

Mr. Cannan, please.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

What this amendment is trying to fix is surprising. This amendment seeks to make it so that as veterans age, they don't see a decrease in the funding they receive from the government. It appears that currently in Bill C-59, when veterans reach the age of 65, they will actually receive less money, which makes no sense, as they're looking at increased costs of health care as they age, as we all age.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Côté.

I have a ruling that applies to NDP-9 and to NDP-10. These amendments seek to amend Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures. The amendments would result in an increase in the value of the benefit in question. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states the following on pages 767 and 768:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair these two amendments propose to increase the value of the said benefit, which would impose an additional charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule these two amendments inadmissible.

We will move to NDP-11, which I do not have a ruling on.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

First, regarding PV-40, Bill C-59 brings in the possibility of automated decision-making. We could have a computer making decisions about who gets to come to Canada. This raises many questions, but it's hidden in this huge budget bill so we haven't been able to ask those questions.

PV-40 and PV-42 delete this section that allows incorporation by reference of these regulations related to the electronic administration of the act. Incorporation by reference means regulations could change over time when external bodies decide to revise those documents that have been incorporated by reference, and Parliament would have no further oversight role. These external changes would become law automatically with no further action required from the Canadian state, or from Parliament.

We feel this is not only not transparent but also downright undemocratic.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Part 3, division 15, section 168 of Bill C-59 would create a non-exhaustive, open-ended list of applications subject to collection of personal biometric information for “verification purposes”.

Our amendment seeks to point out how much Bill C-59 opens up the possibility for collecting biometrics, and to point out the possibility of mission creep, as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association called it in the Senate committee.

The government could easily use this as a grab for the personal and private information of anyone coming into Canada, and use it for virtually any purpose. In fact, the Prime Minister is announcing today that all people requiring visas will need to give their biometrics. There are some legitimate reasons to collect biometrics, but we need to be cautious and need to be transparent.

This change within Bill C-59 came as a surprise and after no serious public study. We feel this is potentially quite dangerous. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hyer.

I have a ruling as the chair on this amendment.

Bill C-59 amends the National Energy Act by altering the maximum period for the duration of export licences. This amendment proposes to re-establish the maximum period for the duration of export licences that is currently in the act. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill”.

In the opinion of the chair, therefore, this amendment attempts to maintain the maximum duration period for export licences that is currently in the National Energy Act. This is contrary to the principle of the bill, which is to establish a new maximum duration period for export licences. Therefore, this amendment is inadmissible.

Is there further discussion on clause 97?

Monsieur Caron.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Sorry. I stand corrected. Thank you very much.

This amendment would undo the change proposed by Bill C-59 to expand the maximum natural gas exportation licence to 40 years from the current maximum which is 25. Recognizing the importance of responsible and sustainable resource development, this change would mean that all stakeholders would get fewer opportunities to revisit projects that had previously received approval, depending on their positive or negative impact on the environment and economies of the communities that they affect.

As West Coast Environmental Law, a B.C. environmental law advocacy group that opposes the change, says, “It is quite possible that something thought to be a good idea today may not be in 25 years' time with the advent of climate change, economic shifts, increasingly harmed environment, and other potentially unforeseen alterations to the landscape. By lengthening the maximum term of licencing we're removing our ability to revisit these important questions and continue to ensure that our decisions are working to the advantage of everyone.”

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting back to order.

This is meeting 87 of the Standing Committee on Finance. We are continuing our clause-by-clause discussion of Bill C-59.

We are at division 7, clause 89. Within this clause we have amendments NDP-4, NDP-5, and NDP-6.

We'll go to Mr. Rankin for NDP-4 or for all of them together.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, our government, of course, continues on its commitment to help out families, not just by lowering the costs they pay for products and services but, most important, by lowering taxes that they are required to pay to the government and providing more money in their pockets to help them make ends meet. We think that is one of the most meaningful things we can do as a government: help Canadians succeed and meet their aspirations and dreams for a brighter future.

This afternoon will be dedicated to today’s NDP’s opposition day motion.

Tomorrow, we will wrap up the third reading debate on Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act. This will be the sixth day of debate for that particular piece of legislation, which would support economic development north of 60 while ensuring the preservation of the environment.

Monday shall be the eighth allotted day when we will debate another NDP opposition day motion. Regrettably, I have noticed that the NDP leader has never taken me up on my suggestion that he allow the House an extended debate on one of their proposals, under Standing Order 81(16)(a). As a result, next week, we will have the 88th time-allocated opposition day of this Parliament.

That evening, as required by the Standing Orders, we will debate the main estimates. Then, we will consider an appropriations bill, the supplementary estimates, followed by a second appropriations bill.

Tuesday morning, we will consider Bill S-2, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, at report stage. This legislation will help streamline regulations and ensure that important safety rules keep up with evolving developments and standards.

In the afternoon, we will take up Bill C-59, economic action plan 2015, No. 1, at report stage, in anticipation that it will be reported back to the House tomorrow.

This package of essential measures—such as the family tax cut, enhancements to the universal child care benefit, and a reduction to the small business income tax—is an important priority for our Conservative government and I think, more important, a priority for Canadian families.

Since the budget was delivered this spring, however, the Liberal leader has let us and all Canadians in on his economic plans.

First, we learned he thinks that “benefiting every single family is not...fair”.

Then, he topped it off when he told Canadians that the Liberals are looking at a mandatory expansion of the Canada pension plan. That would mean a $1,000 tax hike for a typical earner and for that earner's employer, and that $1,000 tax increase on two sides would be a significant potential impairment and drag on our economy. Certainly, it would be a huge drag on the personal finances of Canadian families.

On Wednesday, we will return to Bill C-59, if additional time is needed.

Thursday morning, we will consider Bill C-35, which is the justice for animals in service act, Quanto's law, at report stage and, ideally, third reading.

This is an important bill, which would ensure appropriate criminal penalties for killing or harming police animals and other service animals—dogs, horses, and so on—and speedy consideration of it would be favourable because that would allow it to pass and make it to the Senate for its consideration this spring.

I would remind the House the bill has already received four days of second reading debate and was in the justice committee for over five months.

That afternoon, we will again consider Bill S-2, and I hope it will be at third reading.

Next Friday, we will return to Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, at report stage. The House will recall that we are debating the opposition's amendments to gut the bill of its entire contents—contents that demonstrate our Conservative government's commitment to end violence against women and girls.

Access to Information

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I smell another video coming.

The Information Commissioner of Canada, Suzanne Legault, has already warned the government that the retroactive amendments to the Access to Information Act set out in Bill C-59 set “a perilous precedent against Canadians' quasi-constitutional right to know”. However, the government chose to ignore her.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Ms. Legault recently filed an order in Federal Court to prevent the Conservatives from destroying the data.

Why is the government stubbornly refusing to listen to the commissioner?

Privacy Protection

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

Mr. Speaker, today, with Bill C-59, the Conservatives want to collect biometric data on visitors with visas from over 151 countries.

The Privacy Commissioner was very clear about this. When the government collects that much information, special precautions are required to protect privacy and prevent the theft of personal information, especially considering the Conservatives' record on this, which is downright disastrous.

Will the Conservatives come up with additional measures to protect privacy?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

On the issue of unpaid interns, again we're pleased to see some movement on this. The leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Papineau, conducted a round table with stakeholders on this sometime ago, and we've been recommending action be taken by the federal government in federally regulated industries. But this government has acknowledged that this section of Bill C-59 is based on the rules of the Government of Ontario.

Last year, the Ontario Ministry of Labour undertook a proactive enforcement, laid some rules surrounding unpaid interns. They found that 42% of businesses with interns were breaking the law. The federal labour program doesn't appear to have enough resources to conduct a similar blitz. The number of full-time equivalents or staff in the labour standards division has fallen from 183 in 2013 and 2014, to 126 in 2015-16. That's a 31% cut in staff in this division in just two years. Will the labour program receive any additional resources to help enforce the new rules?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I have to listen to your talking points. At least I wrote mine.

But with one child, earning $30,000 per year, they'll actually get $533 tax-free every month. Under the Conservatives and Bill C-59—

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Chair, Liberals oppose this division, because we have presented a better plan for Canadian families, the Liberal Canada child benefit. The Liberal plan will actually provide Canadian families with one bigger and fairer tax-free monthly cheque to help families with the high cost of raising their children. Under the Liberal plan, a typical two-parent family with two kids, earning $90,000 per year, will get $490 tax-free every month. Under the Conservatives and Bill C-59, that same family receives only around $275 per month after tax. Compared with the Conservative plan, the Liberal plan will provide that family with an additional $2,500 more help, tax-free, every year.

Now, with the Liberal plan, a typical one-parent family with a child—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order. This is meeting number 87 of the Standing Committee on Finance. Orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 25, 2015. We are doing clause-by-clause 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 will obviously go through clause by clause. We will have different officials, depending on which part of the bill we are dealing with. I want to welcome the officials here for part 1.

As you know, a motion was adopted that guides the committee on how long to speak. The three political parties on the committee have five minutes per clause, but as you know, as chair I can grant a little more time if we speak a little longer for certain items and then group other clauses together. Some parties have helpfully indicated which ones they wish to speak to as a priority. I appreciate that very much.

For clause-by-clause consideration pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed. The chair will therefore call clause 2 dealing with part 1, amendments to the Income Tax Act and related legislation.

I do not have any amendments for clauses 2 to 28, and I understand that I can group clauses 2 to 10 together.

Mr. Brison.

Criminal Code

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, following the overwhelming support that my motion received to ban unfair pay-to-pay bank fees, I would like to seek unanimous consent for the following motion. I move that it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Finance that it have the power to expand the scope of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015, and other measures, in order to protect consumers by banning all pay-to-pay practices by banks operating in Canada.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Ms. Tremblay, I am going to ask another question.

As Mr. Lee said, the sick leave provisions were negotiated between the unions and the government, and both parties accepted these provisions. I think that Ms. Daviau, and probably Ms. Benson as well, talked about the possible unconstitutionality of this provision in Bill C-59. If this provision were adopted, what would be the direct consequences? Since this provision may be unconstitutional, what steps will be taken after the passage of this bill?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I understand that.

I want to point out, however, that your testimony, even though it is interesting and informative, does not really have any impact on the legislative changes that are being proposed here. Indeed, the principle of these changes is a retroactive amendment to an act while a legal proceeding has already been undertaken. Consequently, even though your testimony is interesting—and I am sure it will be heard and listened to—it is not really relevant to what is being proposed in Bill C-59.

I would like to go back to Ms. Tremblay and Ms. Daviau. Can you tell us more about the $900 million? According to what the government is saying, it is introducing savings via this budget, and these will contribute to its much-vaunted balanced budget.

Could you tell us in a more detailed way how this $900 million constitutes, according to you, only ostensible, fictitious, savings?

We are going to begin with Ms. Daviau and then go to Ms. Tremblay.

[D/Commr Peter Henschel, Deputy Commissioner, Specialized Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee as you consider division 18 of Bill C-59. I am Deputy Commissioner Peter Henschel, and I am responsible for the RCMP's Specialized Policing Services, which includes the Canadian Firearms Program.

I am here today with Ms. Rennie Marcoux, Chief Strategic Policy and Planning Officer and responsible for the RCMP's Access to Information and Privacy Branch.

The Information Commissioner's investigation into an access to information request for the long-gun registry has been the subject of considerable contention. We would like to take this opportunity to clarify misconceptions of how the RCMP handled this request, as well as the destruction of the non-restricted firearms registration records, otherwise known as the long-gun registry.

In particular, we would like to emphasize that the RCMP takes our obligations under the Access to Information Act seriously. As we will outline, the RCMP worked with the Information Commissioner to respond to the complaint in question while also fulfilling our obligations under the Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act.

To begin I should highlight that what was referred to as the “registry” was not a document stand-alone system, or simple electronic record, but rather a compilation of certain information contained in the Canadian firearms information system. This database is constantly being updated. On a monthly basis there are an estimated 50,000 new or amended records added to the database. A copy of the registry could not be printed, copied, or deleted with the push of a single button. The Firearms Act and associated regulations define the type of information required for the registration of a firearm, such as the make, model, manufacturer, registration date, province, and postal code. In total 27 fields in the Canadian firearms information system relate to the registration of the firearms, or the registry, of which 15 include personal information such as a person's name and address.

Since 2006 the RCMP has responded to over two dozen access to information requests for the long-gun registry. These requests were met by providing the 12 relevant and releasable fields of data. Aside from the request under investigation, the RCMP has never received a complaint on the content of our responses.

I would like to now focus on the destruction of the registration records. Contrary to what has been reported, the RCMP did not—and I will repeat—did not destroy any registration data before the coming into force of the Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act on April 5, 2012. Consistent with the government-approved implementation plan, the RCMP destroyed the records between October 26, 2012, and October 31, 2012, with the exception of the Quebec records, which were maintained pending the outcome of a Supreme Court decision.

When that decision was rendered on March 27, 2015, the RCMP deleted the remaining Quebec records from the Canadian firearms information system between April 10 to April 12, 2015, again consistent with the government-approved implementation plan. I should note here that the destruction process was subject to an audit that was externally verified for the October 2012 destruction. The same process is under way to verify the destruction of the Quebec data. So with these clarifications, I will just turn to my colleague to address the findings of the Information Commissioner.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call order meeting number 86 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.

We want to thank our witnesses for being with us here this morning. First of all, we have with us Professor Ian Lee from Carleton University. We also have with us the Canadian Association of Professional Employees and its president, Madam Emmanuelle Tremblay; the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada and its past president, Mr. Jeffrey Astle; the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, Debi Daviau, the president; the Public Service Alliance of Canada and its national president, Ms. Robyn Benson; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Rennie Marcoux, chief strategic policy and planning officer, and the deputy commissioner for specialized policing services, Mr. Peter Henschel.

Thanks to all of you for being with us here this morning. You will have five minutes maximum for your opening statements.

We'll begin with Professor Lee, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Adler.

Minister, I want to thank you and your officials for appearing before us for our study of Bill C-59. We appreciate your comments very much.

Thank you, colleagues. We will see you on Thursday.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Small businesses are a cornerstone of our economy. They create jobs that support families and our communities, and that's why our budget introduces measures to allow small businesses to grow and create jobs. It's no wonder the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has applauded this measure and gave the budget an A.

The bill would reduce the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019. Using the example of a small business with a taxable income of $500,000, this tax cut and all the tax relief our government has provided since 2006 would result in a nearly 50% decrease in federal taxes, the biggest tax cut in 25 years. This is money small businesses can use to reinvest in the economy and create jobs.

But it goes further. Bill C-59 would amend the Canada small business financing program to allow more small businesses to apply for financing, and allow larger loans to be made available. It would also increase the lifetime capital gains exemption for farmers and fishermen to allow farm and fishing business owners to better ensure their financial security for retirement, by allowing them to keep more after-tax dollars in their pockets following the disposition of their property.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Bill C-59 amends the Canada Labour Code to ensure that interns under federal jurisdiction, regardless of pay, receive occupational health and safety protections. Our government knows that internships can provide important work experience and lead to jobs.

The proposed amendments will also establish two circumstances in which unpaid internships can be offered and provide a coherent set of labour standards to be set out in regulations that will apply to interns who meet either of these circumstance. The first circumstance would be if the internship is formally part of a program approved by a recognized secondary or post-secondary educational institution or vocational school. The second circumstance would be if the internship meets all six specific criteria.

It's important to note that these labour standards regulations will reflect the unique situation of unpaid internships and were developed in consultation with stakeholders. At a minimum, it's expected that they will ensure that unpaid interns receive maximum-hours-of-work protections, as well as unpaid bereavement leave and unpaid sick leave, and are protected from sexual harassment. Our budget focuses on protecting interns and ensuring that internships lead to jobs, which is another way that we're creating job growth and lowering taxes for hard-working Canadians.

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

Also, I know that Bill C-59 has done much to strengthen financing for developing countries and our support for them. Could you speak to the further support and financing we're offering for developing countries as well, sir?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much, Minister, and your officials, for joining us at the finance committee today. It's very much appreciated.

I have to say that I think you were a little modest in recapping. Not only have you balanced the budget, sir, in the context of taxes being at their lowest point in 50 years with over 180 tax reductions, but you've also done it in the context of dropping oil prices. You forgot to mention that you've done it while increasing transfers to the provinces and territories consistently since this government took over. I think it's a remarkable accomplishment.

Specifically, I'd love to hear you speak briefly about how Bill C-59 not only will help the first nations improve first nations services, and services offered to them, but also will improve the First Nations Fiscal Management Act.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, you say that this budget breaks new ground. Bill C-59 does break new ground, because it retroactively makes legal an act that was illegal in the past when it was committed.

With regard to division 18 and the retroactive changes to the long-gun registry, effectively in 2012, when Parliament passed a law to destroy certain records in the long-gun registry, the law when it was passed made no mention of the Access to Information Act. Because of that omission, the records in question actually can't be destroyed until after any pre-existing access to information cases were closed. Now, the law was perhaps badly written, but it has been the law since April 2012.

In May 2012 the public safety minister's head of the RCMP promised that the RCMP would abide by the access to information law in this matter, yet six months later the RCMP actually broke the law and destroyed those records.

Who ordered the RCMP to break the law and destroy those records? Was it the public safety minister or the Prime Minister?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you and the committee members to discuss Bill C-59.

This bill implements key aspects of budget 2015. These elements represent our government's latest measures to create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

Before I get into the details, let me remind the committee of past promises. We promised that once the crisis of the recession passed, we would take action to balance the budget. Equally important would be how we balanced the budget—not by slashing transfer payments to provinces. Unlike the Liberals in the 1990s, we refused to undermine support for the health care and education Canadians rely on, nor did we engage in reckless structural spending schemes or higher taxes. Rather, we promised a balanced budget, balanced fiscally and balanced in the benefits it would offer all Canadians. These are promises made and promises kept. This budget is balanced.

It protects historical transfer payments, which have increased by 62% since we came to power. It has reduced taxes to create an overall federal tax burden that is already at its lowest level in 50 years.

And it builds on a record of success Canadians can be proud of.

Over 1.2 million more Canadians are working now than at the end of the recession. The majority of these jobs have been full-time, high-wage, and in the private sector.

According to KPMG, total business tax costs in Canada are the lowest in the G-7, some 46% lower than those in the United States. In the index of 61 economies, the IMD World Competitiveness Centre ranked Canada 5th in the world for economic competitiveness. The Centre for American Progress says that Canada has experienced continuing middle-income growth, while for many countries it had halted. And Bloomberg has ranked Canada as the second most attractive place in the world to do business.

We've come so far together as Canadians but we are still confronting challenges, including the dramatic decline in the price of oil. Canada is a trading nation deeply intertwined with the global economy. International storms inevitably touch our shores.

Since the recession, the global recovery has been difficult, with the risk of becoming what the managing director of the IMF calls “the new mediocrity”. So what are we doing to move forward here in Canada? Let me talk about some aspects from our latest budget.

I will start with taxation. For families, seniors, and small businesses, we are putting more money and leaving more money in the pockets of Canadians. We have reduced taxes more than 180 times since 2006. In this budget we are going even further.

Economic action plan 2015 implements the family tax cut, expands and enhances the universal child care benefit, and increases the child care expense deduction dollar limits. These benefits will help those who care about their kids most, mum and dad.

We're taking even more action for mums and dads in this budget. We're giving them new opportunities to save for their kids' education, for the down payment on a home, for a new small business, or for retirement. The budget proposes to nearly double the tax-free savings annual contribution limit from $5,500 to $10,000. This will give Canadians, parents, seniors, and hard working people across the country even more freedom to save money tax free. In fact, 60% of those who maxed out on their TFSA contributions last year earned less than $60,000. Three-quarters of contributors earned less than $75,000. This measure is aimed at those who need our help the most: low and middle-income Canadians.

Family means duty: the duty to protect each other. This is a fundamental Canadian value and it is reflected in our values as a government.

Our budget expands compassionate care employment insurance benefits from six weeks to 26 weeks. We are making it easier for Canadians to take care of a sick or dying loved one. I'm deeply proud of this reform, as is our Conservative caucus, the whole caucus. No one is more deserving of our support than those who take time to support their families at times of great need.

This budget also includes a new measure to meet one of the government's most important obligations, which is to protect Canadians here in the country and abroad. When we take a look around the world in 2015, a sad truth emerges: our country is not immune to the dangers of international terrorism.

Our government understands the dangers and is taking action to combat the threat. Today's legislation includes several measures to ensure the continued security of Canadians.

Bill C-59 empowers us to reform House of Commons security, ensuring the safety of elected officials as they go about the business of the nation. It strengthens our ability to revoke passports on grounds of terrorism or national security. To further improve the security of Canada's immigration system, Bill C-59 proposes to expand the use of biometric screening to verify the identity of all visa-required travellers seeking entry into Canada.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we remain undaunted in our efforts to build a more prosperous Canada. The continued weakness of the global economy means we must take relentless action to create jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity.

That starts with small businesses, Canada's greatest job creators. Alone, they account for half the working men and women in Canada's private sector, so we are working hard to put more money back in the pockets of Canada's entrepreneurs.

Today's legislation breaks new ground. It cuts the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019, the largest tax rate cut for small business in more than 25 years. This means an annual tax reduction of up to $38,600 that can be reinvested in a business to fuel its growth and create jobs for Canadians.

Many of these small businesses work in the manufacturing sector. As this committee knows, manufacturing represents over 10% of our GDP and employs 1.7 million people across the country.

Manufacturing built this country. It built my home province into an economic engine of Confederation. Unlike the Liberal leader, who questioned the role of manufacturing in Canada's future, for this Conservative and for this Conservative government, the words “made in Canada” continue to fuel pride and, of course, jobs. That is why we must give manufacturers the tools they need to create the products and the jobs of the future.

Today's legislation includes an accelerated capital cost allowance for machinery and equipment used in manufacturing and processing. This new 10-year tax incentive will result in a deferral that is expected to reduce federal taxes for manufacturers by $1.1 billion over the period from 2016-20. It will create even more jobs for hard-working Canadians.

Let me end with one more job creation measure, a major new infrastructure program: the public transit fund. This program, increasing to $1 billion per year by 2019, will be a permanent source of financing to provinces and municipalities for major public transit projects. It will help cut congestion in Canadian cities, saving families time in traffic and saving businesses from higher costs.

This fund is one more addition to our government's historic infrastructure investments, which together represent the largest long-term federal commitment in our country's history.

Mr. Chair, this is just a brief overview of the many measures in Bill C-59 that will benefit Canadians.

Canada's economic action plan is working, creating jobs and growth and building a stronger, more prosperous, more confident Canada. I'm prepared to tell you more about it today as I answer your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call to order meeting number 85 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 afternoon the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Joe Oliver, presenting on the subject matter, as well as officials in the room.

Minister, you have up to 15 minutes for an opening statement and then we'll have questions from members. You may begin at any time, please.

Veterans

[Erin O'Toole, Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree, the litigation process can be adversarial. That is why I appreciate the efforts that the Equitas Society has made over the last few months to build a respectful dialogue on veterans' issues, including the purpose clause stating our obligation to our veterans that found its way into Bill C-59.

For that reason, I hope that member can finally drop the rhetoric, get behind the bill and support our veterans.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Unfortunately, the time has run out for the chair to ask any questions.

On behalf of all of the committee, I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here this morning and contributing to our deliberations on Bill C-59. We appreciate your involvement very much.

Colleagues, you have a very modest budget in front of you. Could I get someone to move this budget?

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

Thank you very much.

Do you feel that Bill C-59 is going to help that happen?

[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.

[Roch Lapensée, President, House of Commons Security Services Employees Association]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, please allow me to thank you, on behalf of the House of Commons Protective Services Employees Association, for this opportunity to speak before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

The House of Commons Protective Services Employee Association has been certified since 1987 to represent some 225 members of the Protective Service of the House of Commons. The members of the association comprise approximately 190 constables, 15 corporals and 15 sergeants, who all report to the director of the service.

The present brief pertains solely to division 10 of Bill C-59, which amends the Parliament of Canada Act by adding sections 79.51 to 79.59, as well as certain transitional provisions.

Considering the profound changes proposed by this bill regarding security in the parliamentary precinct, the association considers that it is important to appear before this committee to submit its observations in relation to the contemplated changes.

Before delving into the heart of Bill C-59, the association wishes to emphasize its great pride in the professionalism and exemplarity of its members, especially regarding their behaviour during the events of October 22, 2014.

Nobody knows the precinct and members of Parliament better than the employees of the House's Protective Service, which plays a key role in the functioning of our democratic system. Our work requires a significant skill set to combine the necessary security requirements with the public nature of the parliamentary precinct, and this work deserves to be recognized and underscored before this honourable committee.

Turning to the substance of Bill C-59, it should be noted at the outset that the bill provides a definition of the term “parliamentary precinct” in section 79.51. This is a novelty to our knowledge, and one that should be commended. For several years, the work of members of the House's Protective Service has expanded far beyond the walls of what was once called “the Hill”.

The association is satisfied that this new definition recognizes that parliamentary privilege follows the parliamentary function, thus recognizing a functional rather than geographical vision of the concept of parliamentary privilege.

Putting into practice the authority vested in the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Speaker of the House with respect to protection matters, the employees of the House's Protective Service exert all their functions within the confines of parliamentary privilege, being its custodian and therefore an essential part of the legislative function of the House of Commons of Canada.

It is this legislative function that is at the heart of our work, which is why the protection of parliamentary privilege was significantly underscored in the press release issued by the association on February 4, 2015, when the elements now contained in Bill C-59 were announced for the first time by government. The concerns that were voiced in this press release are entirely transposable to Bill C-59, and can be grouped into two broad categories: operational concerns, and labour relations concerns.

The association does not dispute the findings made by the Auditor General of Canada in June 2012 recommending greater coordination between the various entities engaged in the protection of the parliamentary precinct. It is clear that greater coordination in terms of protection and security would have been desirable on October 22, 2014, and still is. This is a conclusion that was also reached by the Ottawa police in a recent press conference.

Also in June 2012, the Auditor General recommended that the House of Commons should contemplate the feasibility of a unified security force for the entire parliamentary precinct. Again, the association is not opposed to this recommendation and welcomes the creation of the Parliamentary Protective Service proposed by section 79.52 of the bill. There are, however, two caveats that the association wishes to underscore.

Firstly, better operational coordination between the various entities does not necessarily require an operational merger of the two protective services, namely, of the House of Commons and Senate. The association considers it unlikely that constables, corporals and sergeants of the House will be used interchangeably in the Senate and vice versa. Our work requires a deep and detailed knowledge of places and people to adequately fulfill our duties, and this knowledge comes with experience that is gained by devoting one's lasting attention to either the House of Commons or the Senate.

The association also considers that it would be impractical and undesirable from a security standpoint to reorganize the protective staff of both houses in order to require that every employee can interchangeably perform the duties in the House of Commons or in the Senate without having long-term assignments in one of the houses.

It would be much more desirable to maintain the current working structures to continue to increase team effectiveness and responsiveness. Thus, the association believes that an operational merger of the two protective services, in the House of Commons and Senate, would not increase the coordination, but on the contrary would reduce its effectiveness by diluting the specificity of its action.

Secondly, the association noted that the bill requires that PPS's new director be an active member of the RCMP, who will serve under the dual authority of the Speakers of the House of Commons and of the Senate. We also note that, although section 79.53 entrusts the PPS with “matters with respect to physical security throughout the parliamentary precinct and Parliament Hill”, section 79.55 of the bill confers exactly the same functions upon the RCMP, referring to an “arrangement” and providing that the RCMP shall “itself” provide physical security services in accordance with this arrangement.

Operational inferences stemming from this situation assume two alternative hypotheses: either the director of the PPS will concretely report to the Speaker of the House of Commons, to the Speaker of the Senate and to someone within the RCMP, or that person will actually be exclusively under the authority of the RCMP. In the first hypothesis, the association is unclear as to how a PPS director receiving directives from three different heads would be likely to improve security in the parliamentary precinct, or coordination between different protective services involved in such protection.

The mandatory institutional links between the new PPS director and the RCMP also appears problematic, especially in the very likely event that this person is confronted with conflicting or incompatible instructions. The triple-allegiance of that person — in other words, to the House of Commons, Senate and RCMP — would inevitably create a conflict, since the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and oaths made under this legislation would compel the new PPS director to disobey the House or Senate Speakers, and obey only the Commissioner of the RCMP. How could one conclude that parliamentary privilege, ensuring the independence of the legislative function, would be preserved in such a situation? Not to mention the operational nightmare that such a situation could present in an emergency situation similar or worse than the events of October 22, 2014.

The association views the second hypothesis, that is an exclusive operational control by the RCMP, as being equally or even more problematic. The association refers to its press release of February 4, 2015, setting out its position on the possible control by the RCMP of protection within the parliamentary precinct. Our concerns about upholding parliamentary privilege remain intact, and the association does not believe that it is in the interest of our democracy to give control of security within the legislative power to the executive power, this said with the utmost respect for the quality of work of the RCMP in its primary position, which is not the protection of the parliamentary precinct.

Returning to the “arrangement” under section 79.55 of Bill C-59, the association wonders about the practical significance of this provision. Are there plans to replace, double or add to existing positions in the House's Protective Service? If so, in what areas? No response could be provided as to the practical intentions of government regarding this provision.

Still with respect to this “arrangement”, nothing in the bill seems to prevent that the Speakers of the House of Commons and of the Senate may not have a decision-making role in the choice of the future director of PPS. It is entirely possible that this “arrangement” provides that the decision-making level in the selection process lies somewhere in the RCMP, somewhere in the Privy Council Office, or within the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, which would appear to the association to be yet another dent into parliamentary privilege and into our democratic system.

In sum, it is the very idea of RCMP control on protection operations within the parliamentary precinct that the association questions. This is not a matter of turf or jurisdiction, but a strong plea for the need to combine operational effectiveness and the respect for the sacred principles on which our Constitution has been founded.

Concluding on this aspect, the association would like to recall that no report, no study and no informed public commentator has questioned the work of the House's Protective Service, including in relation to the events of October 22, 2014.

It is, in this context, entirely legitimate to question the merits of the probable takeover of the PPS's control by the RCMP, or at least the very real possibility thereof envisaged by Bill C-59. Why change a recipe that works and works well? Are such changes not rather conducive to weakening our security safeguards? The association believes that the answer is in the question.

The association is satisfied by the presence of certain transitional provisions in Bill C-59 which, at first sight, seem to guarantee employment for the 225 employees of the House's Protective Services. This is especially so with respect to section 100 of the bill, which seems to protect the position of those currently employed by the House and of the Senate.

However, the association is concerned that the bill does not uphold the commitment made by the Speaker of the House in his motion of February 25, 2015, guaranteeing the employment of all employees of the House's Protective Services.

Indeed, Bill C-59 does not reflect this clear commitment and does not preclude a reorganization of work that could result in cuts or abolition of positions or modifications in terms of the workforce. Contrary to providing such job security, Bill C-59 introduces a significant amount of doubt and insecurity by requiring, as noted above, that both the PPS and the RCMP will be responsible for providing physical security throughout the Parliamentary Precinct, but without specifying who will do what, and by giving an unfair advantage to the RCMP in this regard by requiring that the director of PPS be an active member of the RCMP. This is a significant concern for the association, which would wish that the commitment made on February 25, 2015, jointly by the Speaker of the House and by the late Speaker of the Senate, Mr. Nolin, be clearly spelled out in Bill C-59.

To the extent permitted by the necessary discretion inherent to security operations, the association is available to answer questions that this honourable committee may have regarding division 10 of Bill C-59.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We will reconvene.

We're discussing the proposed amendments of Bill C-59. We have one witness, the very popular Mr. Kurland. We've made him well travelled over the years, it seems.

I thank you, sir, for coming in and giving us your thoughts. We had originally scheduled three witnesses, but it's just you. Unless the committee objects, I'm going to shorten the last hour somewhat, by perhaps half an hour. My colleagues may want to talk to you longer, but that's what I'm proposing.

Sir, as usual, if you could give us some of your thoughts on these proposals, we would appreciate it.

[David Macdonald, Senior Economist, National Office, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives]

I'd like to thank the committee for its invitation to speak today about Bill C-59. I'd like to limit my comments this morning to the proposed increase in annual contribution room in the tax-free savings account to $10,000 from $5,500.

I'd like to start with some critical information missing from budget 2015, without which I'm afraid the committee members may draw incorrect conclusions from the benefits of TFSA doubling.

The graph on the slide is reproduced directly from the federal budget 2015, and it purports to show that lower- and middle-income Canadians may gain more than wealthy Canadians from TFSA doubling. Unfortunately, the proportion of the population contained in each of these bars is not shown or included elsewhere in the budget, and this missing critical information for context to understanding what's happening here may lead to incorrect conclusions.

For instance, if the first bar on the left—for those making under $20,000—represented only 1% of the population, but received 15% of the benefits from TFSA doubling, as shown in the graph, this would certainly be a good deal for this group. Unfortunately, those making under $20,000 represent 34% of the population, but only receive 15% of the benefits—not an especially good deal.

On the other hand, those making over $250,000, representing the top 1% of the population, receive 4% of the benefits—definitely a good deal for them. In fact, the bottom 25% of the population in this graph—those making under $10,000—receive only 8% of the benefits of TFSA doubling; however, the richest 10% of the population receive 22% of the benefits of TFSA doubling.

However, looking at the distribution of benefits alone belies a larger fact, that very few Canadians are actually maximizing the TFSA room they already have.

This slide shows the percentage of Canadians who are maximizing their TFSAs in 2013, the most recent year available. It also displays bars of 10%, or deciles of the population, so as not to under-represent low-income Canadians, as the previous graph did.

For the bottom half of the population—those making under $30,000—maximization rates for TFSAs are vanishingly small. In every decile, the maximization rates are at or under 5%, meaning that 95% of the bottom half of the population haven't maximized the room they had in 2013.

Maximization rates are predictably higher at higher income levels, and they peak for the top 1%, where roughly one-third have maximized their TFSAs.

Underlying low maximization rates are low take-up rates in opening a TFSA account in the first place, particularly for low- and middle-income Canadians. For the bottom half of Canadians, only 30% have even opened a TFSA account; in other words, three-quarters of the lower half of Canadians don't have a TFSA. In contrast, 70% of those in the top 1% making over $250,000 do have a TFSA.

The final slide shows that since 2010 maximization rates have been falling. For the poorest 10% of Canadians making under $5,000 a year, only 4% maximized their TFSA in 2010, and that's fallen to only 1% in 2015. For the middle-income earners—this is the sixth decile—the maximization rate has fallen from 12% in 2010, when the maximum was $10,000 for a TFSA, to only 5% in 2015, when the cap was the much higher $36,500. This is prior to the doubling being discussed here.

The purported purpose of the TFSA program is to help low- and middle-income Canadians save for retirement and in particular to avoid the GIS clawback upon retirement. However, take-up rates, much less maximization rates among low- and middle-income Canadians have been poor, and the program has been much more rapidly taken up by the rich.

In order that this program does not produce TFSA millionaires who are eligible for programs meant for low-income seniors, like the guaranteed income supplement, it's important that the TFSA program have two caps put in place. First, a lifetime contribution cap should be set at $150,000, and second, a maximum amount of assets in a TFSA should also be set at a cap of $300,000.

I encourage the committee to include these caps in budget 2015.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

[Terry Zive, Chair, Government Relations, Conference for Advanced Life Underwriting]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for today's opportunity.

I'm Terry Zive and I appear before you today as a member of the CALU board of directors and the chair of CALU's government relations committee.

CALU and our sister organization Advocis represent approximately 11,000 insurance and financial advisers, who in turn provide financial advice to millions of Canadians. We're pleased to have this opportunity to comment on elements of the 2015 budget now contained in Bill C-59 that will assist Canadians as they retire and enter their ever-extending senior years. We would also like to comment on an additional proposal that CALU included as part of its pre-budget 2015 submission, which we hope will be given consideration during the 2016 budget process. It's never too early to start.

Demographically, we can all agree it is readily apparent that the boomer generation has had, and will continue to have, a significant socio-economic impact in Canada. Notably, the first boomers turned 65 years of age in 2011, and over the next 20 years, this group will expand the number of Canadians over the age of 65 to 23% of the population. As Canadians retire and age, two of their greatest concerns are receiving quality health care and the probability of outliving their personal savings. It is therefore critically important that all levels of government focus on encouraging Canadians to be more financially self-sufficient during their retirement years, and in doing so reduce their reliance on public programs and institutional support.

CALU is therefore very supportive of the reduction in the RRIF minimum factors announced in budget 2015 and now included in Bill C-59. These modifications, the first since the early 1990s, will help Canadians retain more of their savings and protect them from longevity risk. While CALU applauds the government for its action, we also strongly recommend the implementation of a regular review process of the payout factors, say every five years, to ensure that this important investment vehicle continues to provide the necessary financial support to aging Canadians when they need it most.

With a significant portion of the Canadian population moving into their retirement years, advancing age will drive the corresponding need for increased long-term care services. Last fall, the C.D. Howe Institute released a report that estimates that the total cost of long-term care will more than double to $140 billion over the next 20 years, leaving all of us to ask who will bear this additional cost.

The C.D. Howe report concluded that the provinces will need to shift more of the cost to those who can afford to pay. This will be an additional financial burden in retirement for which most Canadians are not currently planning. While we recognize and support the introduction of several long-term care initiatives in the 2015 budget, including the home accessibility tax credit and extending compassionate care benefits, we believe the looming funding crisis must be addressed with greater urgency.

CALU believes that long-term care insurance can play an important role in helping address this funding gap. Long-term care insurance provides a cash allowance to individuals who are unable to manage the activities of daily living. Greater ownership of this type of insurance coverage is critical to helping manage private costs associated with long-term care services. CALU therefore urges the federal government to continue to take a leadership position in preparing Canadians for what lies ahead. This can be achieved by: first of all, educating Canadians about their financial obligations relating to long-term care services; second, by working with the provinces to develop a more unified approach to determine who qualifies for subsidized access; and finally, by enacting the tax rules that will encourage more Canadians to own individual long-term care insurance.

Mr. Chair and committee members, I thank you for your time and attention. I'd be pleased to respond to any questions you might have.

[Corinne Pohlmann, Senior Vice-President, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to be here.

CFIB is a not-for-profit, non-partisan organization representing more than 109,000 small and medium-sized businesses across Canada that collectively employ more than 1.25 million Canadians and represent about $75 billion in GDP. Our members represent all sectors of the economy and they're found in every region of the country.

I provided a slide deck presentation to the clerk, and I'm hopeful you can have it in front of you when I walk you through it as we go through the presentation.

Our latest “Business Barometer” was just released this morning, and it shows that small business confidence remained cool in May, essentially staying unchanged since April at 60.6, as you can see on slide 2. While things have not gotten worse, they also have not improved, and so measures that can help boost small business confidence, such as some of the measures within part 1 of Bill C-59 are welcome.

Given the important role small businesses play in the Canadian economy, it should be no surprise that small business confidence is a pretty good indicator of real GDP, which you can also see on the chart on slide 2. Measures that can help boost small business confidence should also help improve Canada's economy overall.

How do you build that confidence? You address the issues of highest priority to the small businesses. As you can see on slide 3, the top issues of concern are total tax burden, government regulation, and paper burden.

Four of the measures contained in part 1 go some way in addressing these issues and will be what I focus on today. They are the reduction in the small business tax rate, the increase in the lifetime capital gains exemption, the new quarterly remitter category for small and new employers, and providing accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturing and processing equipment.

As you can see in slide 4, in a recent survey 83% of small business owners said that reducing the small business corporate tax rate would be an effective measure in helping them to maintain or strengthen their business performance, with almost half saying it would be very effective. This has actually grown in importance, as we've seen the value of the small business tax gradually erode relative to the general corporate tax rate, which fell from 28% to 15%, while the small business rate only fell from 12% to 11% during that same period.

We believe there are good reasons to have a lower small business tax rate, as it helps to offset some of the increased costs borne by smaller companies. These include the higher cost per capita of dealing with red tape, the more difficult and higher cost to access financing, and the more limited ability for smaller companies to access certain tax credits and tax advantages that larger firms can. As a result we're very pleased to see this commitment to reduce the rate to 9% by 2019. The only thing that might have made it better is if it could have been done sooner to help boost confidence now.

The next measure we are pleased to see is the increase in the lifetime capital gains exemption for qualified farm and fish properties. The lifetime capital gains exemption is the most important retirement savings mechanisms for all small business owners, as you see on slide 5. Most small business owners do not have pension plans; therefore, they must rely on other sources of income to finance their retirement years. In fact, the lifetime capital gains exemption is especially important for those in the agriculture sector as even more of them, close to 90%, said it is a very important mechanism for their retirement savings.

As you can see on slide 6, addressing this issue now is critical, as more than two-thirds of small business owners are planning to exit their business within the next 10 years, and most of them, 85%, are planning to exit to go to retirement. However, it not only helps small business owners with financing their retirement, but it also becomes an important tool for helping to finance the next generation of entrepreneurs. In fact, about half of the respondents in a recent survey stated that securing financing for the successor is one of the key challenges facing businesses that are going through a succession process. To overcome that challenge, some have been using the proceeds from the lifetime capital gains exemption to help finance their successor as they take over the business. Therefore, increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption will be well received, and we can encourage government to consider expanding it to $1 million for all small businesses in the near future.

A third item we welcome in the budget is the creation of a new quarterly remitter category that would reduce paper burden on brand new businesses just starting out. This may be a small measure, but it's hugely important in recognizing the increased cost that regulations and paper burden place on small companies.

Slide 7 shows that small businesses spend almost five times more per capita than larger businesses in dealing with red tape, and any measure that reduces that even just a little bit is welcome.

Even more important, when asked about the most burdensome federal regulations they face, CRA-related rules such as payroll tax remittances are at the top of the list, as you can see on slide 8. If you want to encourage more businesses to get started, we need to make the pathway as simple as possible so that they spend more time growing their business than doing government paperwork.

These small measures can have a significant impact on the ground, and we welcome more creative ways like these to reduce that burden on the smallest firms.

Finally, we welcome the extension of the accelerated capital cost allowance for investment in machinery and equipment used in manufacturing and processing. As you can see on slide 9, in a recent survey more than half of all small business owners and about three-quarters of those found in the manufacturing sector stated it would be effective in helping them maintain or strengthen their business performance. We believe this is an important measure that can help stimulate a sector that has the potential to help boost Canada's economy in the months ahead.

All the measures I have mentioned—the small business tax reduction, increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption, creation of a new quarterly remitter category, and an accelerated capital cost allowance—are welcome, as each of these have the potential to help boost small business confidence, which will ultimately be good for Canada's economy.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order.

This is meeting number 83 of the Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the order of reference on 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 have two panels here this morning.

For the first panel we have Professor Frances Woolley from Carleton University. Welcome back to the committee.

From the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives we have the senior economist, Mr. David Macdonald. Welcome to you, sir.

From the Canadian Federation of Independent Business we have the senior vice-president, Corinne Pohlmann. Welcome back as well.

From the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters we have the director of policy, innovation, and business taxation, Monsieur Martin Lavoie. Bienvenue.

From the Conference for Advanced Life Underwriting we have the chair of government relations, Mr. Terry Zive. Welcome to you, sir, as well.

You will each have five minutes for your opening statement. I think we're still trying to get a technical set-up for Mr. Macdonald, and hopefully we'll have that in place in time.

We'll start with Professor Woolley, please.

[Chris Gregory, Director, Identity Management and Information Sharing, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable members of Parliament.

My name is Chris Gregory, and I am Director of Identity Management and Information Sharing at Citizenship and Immigration Canada, or CIC.

I'm here today to answer any technical questions that you may have on the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act related to biometric screening under part 3, division 15, of Bill C-59.

Verifying a person's identity is vital to decisions made by Canadian visa officers abroad and by border service officers at Canadian ports of entry. An increase in application volumes and sophistication in identity fraud pose significant challenges to maintaining the integrity of Canada's immigration system. The use of biometrics in the immigration screening process helps us to address these challenges.

In 2013 Citizenship and Immigration Canada successfully implemented the temporary resident biometrics project, on time and on budget. Under this initiative we use fingerprints and a digital photograph to screen applicants from 29 countries and one territory who are applying to Canada for a temporary resident visa, work permit, or study permit. Privacy safeguards have been built into policies, procedures, and systems to ensure that client information is collected, transmitted, used, and stored securely.

Biometric immigration screening is now the standard worldwide, with more than 70 countries applying such methods. This new initiative brings Canada in line with key allies who are increasingly using biometric screening as part of their border security and immigration programs.

Biometric screening in Canada's temporary resident program is proving effective in protecting the safety and security of Canadians and the integrity of the immigration system, while facilitating travel for genuine travellers. It has made it easier to establish and confirm a person's identity, and to identify known criminals before they come to Canada. It has also facilitated the entry of applicants seeking to come to Canada for legitimate purposes, and made it more difficult for others to forge, steal, or use another person's identity to fraudulently gain access to our country.

In the 2014 economic action plan, the Government of Canada highlighted the importance of biometric screening in Canada's immigration program and committed to exploring new ways to improve the security and integrity of the immigration system.

To this end, the 2015 economic action plan announced the expansion of the biometric screening program. Through the proposed legislative amendments in front of you today, we are seeking to expand biometric screening to more foreign nationals applying to come to Canada, including foreign nationals applying to come temporarily to visit, work, or study as well as those applying for permanent residency. As Canadians are generally exempt from providing their biometrics when seeking temporary entry to the United States, U.S. citizens would also be exempt from providing their biometrics when they apply to study or work in Canada.

The fingerprints we collect would be checked against the RCMP's immigration and criminal fingerprint records, which would confirm if someone has previously applied to CIC using the same or a different identity, has previously been removed, or has a previous Canadian criminal conviction. Upon arrival in Canada, these individuals would have their fingerprints verified to ensure that the person who is issued a visa or permit is the same individual now seeking to enter Canada.

These legislative amendments would be supported by regulatory amendments that would come into effect in 2018-19. Safeguards would continue to be in place, including in the regulations, to ensure biometric screening is conducted in accordance with Canada's privacy laws and policies.

Expanding the use of biometrics in our immigration and border screening processes would help facilitate the entry of genuine travellers, and strengthen the safety and security of Canadians by reducing identity fraud and preventing inadmissible people, including known criminals, from entering the country.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Now I turn to Brenna for further remarks.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good morning. This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 50, Thursday, May 28, 2015. We're here to decide, to debate, and to discuss a number of clauses from Bill C-59, particularly clauses 168 to 176 of that bill, as requested by the finance committee.

The morning is divided into two sections. The first will be with the members of the department who are here this morning to help us. In the second hour we had originally scheduled for three witnesses; however, only one is able to appear.

We'll proceed with the first hour. We do have some representatives from the department. Chris Gregory is the director of identity management and information sharing. I gather, sir, you're going to be making a presentation to us. We have Brenna MacNeil, who's the senior director of strategic policy and planning. Good morning to you, Ms. MacNeil. Finally, we have Bruce Grundison, who's the executive director of the strategic projects office. Thank you, sir, for coming.

Mr. Gregory, you have the floor to make a presentation to the committee.

[Richard Blackwolf, National President and Chief Executive Officer, CAV, National Alliance, Canadian Aboriginal Veterans and Serving Members Association]

Good evening. I'm Richard Blackwolf, the national president of Canadian Aboriginal Veterans and Serving Members Association. I'm honoured to have with me tonight, Mr. Joseph Burke, the Canadian Aboriginal Veterans national representative from Ottawa, who has an extensive medical background from his service in the military.

Mr. Chairman and honourable members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee and give you our thoughts and opinions on the clauses contained in division 17, part 3 of Bill C-59.

It is our understanding that Canada is one of the countries that do not maintain a large standing armed forces. The often quoted prime minister, Sir Robert Borden, in his speech to the Canadian corps on the eve of the attack on Vimy Ridge is a reflection of the covenant between the Government of Canada and the citizen volunteers of Canada who go to fight in Europe.

The new Veterans Charter is a covenant between the people of Canada and the Government of Canada to the current volunteers serving in the Canadian Armed Forces and to future citizens answering a call to arms when the country needs to fight aggression. Therefore, it is all of our duties to make the best possible charter for the care of our veterans.

Our submission today is the result of a clause-by-clause analysis of division 17, part 3 of Bill C-59, with reference to the committee's previous three questions posed last year in May.

The purpose of the act is centred on the obligation to provide services, assistance, and compensation to Canadian Forces serving members and veterans, who have been injured or die for their service and have benefits extended to their spouse, common-law spouse, children, and orphans.

Mr. Burke will address the other portion of our presentation at this time.

[Robert Thibeau, President, Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones]

Good evening.

Once again, it's a great pleasure for me to appear in front of this committee to speak to you on behalf of the Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones and its partner organization the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples veterans, as well as the first nations veterans of Canada.

I've been asked by this committee to comment specifically on division 17 of part 3 of Bill C-59, which 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 the Canadian Forces members and veterans to civilian life...; (c) establish the retirement income security benefit to provide eligible veterans and their 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 a permanent disability; and (e) establish the family caregiver relief benefit to provide eligible veterans who require a high level on ongoing care from an informal caregiver with an annual grant to recognize that caregiver's support.

The Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones believes that this portion of Bill C-59 as it deals with veterans requires us to examine it more closely as to the substance of what will be contained in that bill and what that actually encompasses. We feel that there needs to be a substantive commitment and positive action to prove to veterans, the veterans community and their families that this government and this nation does care for those they have sent into harm's way.

I will now briefly acknowledge the details of division 17 of part 3 and offer our words on these.

Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones and its partners are in full agreement that this looks like a step in the right direction for the Government of Canada and Veterans Affairs Canada. Transitioning of Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans and the services that have been mentioned in broad terms must include a sound and effective communication plan. There cannot be any misunderstanding as to what services are available and the benefits prescribed through Veterans Affairs. Therefore, effective communication is the key.

An issue previously brought forward to this committee by the Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones was this very issue of effective communication to rural and remote communities of aboriginals, including first nations, Métis, and the Inuit. We must consider veterans living in remote areas and develop ways to remove barriers due to location and possibly a lack of technology and to improve outreach to those veterans.

The retirement income security benefit and its establishment cannot be commented on fully at this time as we require to see the content of the proposal. We can only hope that whatever will be proposed will be acceptable to meet the needs of those veterans and families requiring this assistance and that we will not struggle later on to obtain the services for veterans or survivors.

The establishment of the critical injury benefit is another positive step forward to respond to the needs of those who suffer severe and/or traumatic injuries related to their service. Again, we must ensure that the content of this will meet the needs of the affected veterans.

During a recent trip that I took with 28 veterans of the Italian campaign—heros of Canada—I heard horrific stories of battles fought, friends lost, and pain endured. I was humbled to be included with these individuals. The stories I heard were stories that had never been talked about. They were stories of tragic events, happy occasions, and remembrance of good old friends. It certainly gave me a better understanding and an appreciation of the need to ensure that veterans are properly looked after due to their personal contributions, their personal sacrifices, and their abilities to move forward.

I was informed by some of these outstanding veterans of suicides of friends, of alcohol abuse, and of family problems suffered by returning veterans.

I also heard of how some were able to tackle the demons and to become successful in whatever they decided to do. There are two comments that stand out in my mind that were shared by these veterans with me.

The first one is that we had a number of aboriginals who were in our units. They were all good soldiers and we lost more than a few of them. It is too bad they were not looked after when they returned home.

Two, if it was not for the Afghanistan veterans, we veterans would not have gotten the benefits that were denied to us long ago. We can certainly see the similarities between what earlier veterans had gone through in the past and what our current veterans are going through today. Today's veterans have also suffered deeply, both physically and mentally, from recent conflicts.

Today's veterans are forced to rely on the dedicated and steadfast efforts of caregivers who in some cases are spouses, who gave up careers, took a reduction in income, and faced financial hardships, and which for some, led to a strain on relationships and a breakdown in relationships. These caregivers ensure the best of care is given. They are the ones who assist the injured while leading to the ultimate survival of the heros. No one could ever take for granted these what I term front-line defenders of our injured.

Compensation to caregivers who sacrifice everything in order to provide much in the therapeutic recovery of our veterans should not be undermined, and they must be recognized for their selfless contributions. If there is a need to continue support beyond age 65, then this should never be questioned, as we are talking about individuals who have given a great deal of themselves for the freedoms enjoyed by other Canadians.

We must also remember that as a country, Canada has sent these soldiers, sailors, air men and women to places of turmoil, conflict, and outright horror. That being the case, we should never accept the shirking of the responsibility we have for looking after injured Canadian Forces members and veterans.

In closing, I echo the comments made by both the Veterans Ombudsman and the Royal Canadian Legion. The new Veterans Charter and the enhanced Veterans Charter are considered living documents. This means that as a living document it requires review and adjustment in order for it to meet the needs of its recipients. As I have stated before, the new Veterans Charter was introduced in the House and all parties accepted it, as did the Canadian Armed Forces and a vast majority of the veterans groups. The new Veterans Charter has a number of issues and problems, but it is the job of our politicians to look to and listen to organizations that are providing good advice and offering solutions to the problems associated with veterans.

ADA stands behind the Royal Canadian Legion and the ombudsman for their tireless efforts to move forward on behalf of all veterans. ADA has always taken the stance that we will support only those organizations or groups that are for positive movement forward on veterans issues.

A final thought from one of my partner organizations is that veterans should probably be the labour force at Veterans Affairs Canada and also appointees to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

On behalf of myself, my partner organizations, and all Canadian veterans, I offer sincere thanks for allowing me to attend this committee.

Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Good evening and welcome to the 52nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Tonight we will continue to study division 17 of part 3 of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures.

The meeting will end at 7:30 p.m.

I'd like to begin by thanking the committee members for agreeing to meet today on such short notice so that we could hear from additional witnesses.

Unfortunately, scheduling this meeting next week was not an option since the Standing Committee on Finance invited our committee to present its recommendations by 9:00 a.m. next Tuesday, June 2.

This evening we will have the pleasure of hearing Robert Thibeau, president of Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones; Richard Blackwolf, national president and chief executive officer, and Joseph Burke, national service officer, Ottawa, both with the National Alliance of the Canadian Aboriginal Veterans and Serving Members Association; and finally, Jenny Migneault in a personal capacity.

The representatives from each of the three groups will have up to 10 minutes to give their presentation. Afterwards, members will have the opportunity to ask questions.

Mr. Thibeau, you're first. Welcome.

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, omnibus budget bills are undemocratic and unfair, contain wedge issues and make a member of Parliament's job impossible to complete. On Monday night, the House was forced to cast a single yea or nay vote on Bill C-59, the government's latest omnibus budget bill. The bill is 157 pages long, divided into three parts, and part 3 is further divided into 20 divisions. This allows for a wide range of disparate topics to be covered, some supportable, many not.

I support most of the tax credits and actual budgetary items. However, I strongly oppose retroactively amending the access act to allow for the premature destruction of records. I supported ending the long gun registry, but to retroactively change the law dealing with the records while the abolition bill was being debated is a dangerous, undemocratic precedent.

In any functioning parliamentary system, this omnibus bill would be divided and there were would be separate votes on each part and on every division within each part. It is simply impossible to cast a single yea or nay on an entire disparate package.

If the government will not respect Parliament enough to allow us to do our jobs, then the Speaker must intervene to defend parliamentary privilege. That is how a functioning parliamentary democracy would proceed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I would like to thank all of our witnesses, and particularly Mr. Fleming for his patience in participating long distance like this.

The 52nd meeting of this standing committee will take place here in this room at 6:30 tomorrow evening.

This will be our third meeting on the study on division 17 of part 3 of Bill C-59.

This will in fact be the last meeting at which we will be hearing witnesses with regard to the study.

Tomorrow, we will hear testimonies from Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones and the Canadian Aboriginal Veterans and Serving Members Association.

We will also hear Jenny Migneault, who will join us in a personal capacity.

We are waiting for confirmation from Marie-Andrée Mallette, but it looks like she will be there, too.

Have a good evening, and see you tomorrow.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Derryk Fleming]

I believe that spousal care should be made available to all veterans, not just moderately and severely injured ones, because the spouses, the caregivers, until this point have not had any support whatsoever.

In terms of the actual transition, I take into account that this is a living document, so Bill C-59, division 17 is just one step of a number of steps.

So specifically I think you can do the most good by closing the seams of the football, as Brian mentioned, and doing the hand-off. I think there is some merit to this bill, specifically the hand-off. I think you're going to see real value come about from this bill in a really proactive manner, which is not to take away from what the other witnesses have said, but in a proactive manner. Having a seamless transition so the guys don't fall between the cracks as they're being released, I think is a strong point of this bill.

Thank you.

[Sean Bruyea]

Okay. Super, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, for the invitation. We have much to do so I will skip further formalities.

The proposed programs that bring us here today have been accompanied by an inundation of feel-good political announcements. Does the hype match reality? More importantly, do the programs fulfill identified gaps and address the evidence-based recommendations?

The retirement income security benefit claims it will top up to 70% of what the veteran received from government prior to age 65. However, this is based upon the veteran's earnings loss benefit, as already pointed out, which pays 75% of release salary, inadequately adjusted for inflation. The retirement benefit equates to the veteran effectively receiving 52.5% of their military salary, once again inadequately adjusted for inflation.

It is interesting to note that the ombudsman, Guy Parent, was quick to endorse this program during a partisan political announcement, yet Mr. Parent's office clearly recommended a retirement benefit matching 70% of a fully indexed release salary.

The department has been less than forthcoming as to what will be deducted from this income, but we are safe to assume that CPP, OAS, and the CF retirement pension will be deducted. We must know that OAS, a program for all Canadians, is transparent in its legislation as to how OAS is calculated. Do veterans not deserve the same sort of transparency for their benefits?

What we do know is that the calculation for the veteran retirement benefit does not include these other incomes in calculating the 70% benefit, but then will likely deduct these programs at 100%. This hardly meets the smell test, let alone the fact it fails to provide the veteran with even 70% of what he or she received in Government of Canada benefits prior to age 65.

We also must emphatically remember that the majority of veterans groups that are active in advocacy, the ombudsman, VAC's own advisory group, and this committee in 2010 have all repeatedly recommended that the 75% earnings loss benefit be substantively increased to anywhere from 90% to 100% of release salary, matching typical career progression and promotions.

Implementing this universally supported recommendation would result in a dignified income loss program, which would in turn provide a dignified retirement benefit for our most injured veterans. Today we are witnesses to the consequence of government's repeated dismissal of this evidence-based research and recommendation in this paltry payout from this proposed retirement benefit.

The family caregiver benefit is another puzzling creation. No veteran group, parliamentary committee, ombudsman, or advisory group asked for this benefit in this form. What others have asked for is everything from matching the DND caregiver benefit, which pays up to $36,500 in any 365 cumulative days, to providing spouses of TPI veterans with their own earnings loss benefit to compensate for their lost income while they're caring for their disabled veteran spouses.

One of the easiest solutions would be merely to open up attendance allowance to new Veterans Charter recipients. However, the proposed family caregiver benefit pays $7,238 per year, equivalent to the lowest levels of attendance allowance, which pays up to $21,151.44 annually.

New Veterans Charter clients are prevented, under this legislation, from accessing the attendance allowance. Attendance allowance recipients are prevented from accessing the new family caregiver benefit, yet the criteria for each are different. If new Veterans Charter programs are so good, why is this one closed to Pension Act clients? If the Pension Act so inadequate, why are NVC clients prevented from accessing attendance allowance?

The critical injury benefit will provide a one-time payment of $70,000 to eligible Canadian Forces members and veterans “for severe, sudden and traumatic injuries or acute diseases that are service related, regardless of whether they result in permanent disability”. Countless veterans have come forward, telling us that disabling PTSD, traumatic brain injury, and loss of organ function are being low-balled below the approximately $40,000 average disability award payment.

How can government justify to a veteran suffering a lifelong disability that their disabling pain and suffering merits far lower a payment than a veteran who temporarily suffered an injury?

This leads to the obvious question on many Canadians' mind: from what bureaucratic orifice did this benefit originate? Absolutely no one in the veterans community, the ombudsman's office, the committee, or advisory group asked for this benefit. We know little of the criteria, but we can guess.

The criteria will be so stringently defined as to restrict the benefits to only two or three individuals per year out of a totally disabled and permanently incapacitated veteran population of 4,000 veterans, and a CF serving and veteran population of 700,000 individuals.

How is this in any manner fulfilling Canada's obligation to all of our veterans and their families? It is not. Why did government not do what we've all been asking and increase the amount of the lump-sum benefit to at least match court awards for pain and suffering? We are inundated by slick PR campaigns and political photo shoots on the importance of military service and of being a veteran, but when it comes to addressing shortcomings for those most in need, government delays deflect, and unfortunately have been lightly dancing on the suffering of our veterans and their families.

Bill C-59 proposes wording regarding an obligation to our serving members, our veterans, and their families, to provide services, assistance, and compensation. It is more encompassing than the construction clause of the Pension Act. However, both offer little substance and are essentially meaningless.

To what end is the obligation? Is it to rehabilitate, to re-establish or offer opportunity, well-being, employment, quality of life or education, or perhaps provide a clear service standard? An obligation without a goal is meaningless. Why does this obligation recognize assistance to only injured members, veterans, and their families? Is Canada not responsible for all veterans? The duty of the minister under the Department of Veterans Affairs Act is for “the care, treatment or re-establishment in civil life of any person who served in the Canadian Forces”, and “The care of the dependants or survivors”. Is this not what the NVC promised but has so far failed to deliver?

I'm consistently honoured to appear before committee and to have my comments placed on the record. In the past, I have provided over 100 recommendations in original reports with often unprecedented observations, likely more than any other individual or organization. In my last submission, I provided 30 easy and doable recommendations, which would have minimal expenditure and—

[Michael Blais, President and Founder, Canadian Veterans Advocacy]

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Michael Blais. I'm the president and founder of the Canadian Veterans Advocacy. Thank you for inviting me to attend committee tonight to speak to Bill C-59 and the creation of new programs designed to improve the quality of life for disabled veterans.

It is very gratifying to me to note that several of the primary issues that I found at the Canadian Veterans Advocacy in 2010 have been addressed recently. While there is a certain degree of scepticism within the veterans community I serve as to the timing of these announcements and the looming election, I am hopeful that the government is acting in good faith and that there will be merit in these discussions.

I understand there is only so much we can do with the limited time available to us. To that end, I'd like to focus on the shortcomings that I believe can be resolved at this time, if the government is acting in good faith, to ensure the proposals that have been brought forward will be inclusive to all veterans, not only those who have experienced physical trauma.

Critical injury benefit: I believe this is a positive development. However, what is very troubling to me is the fact that many who have sustained mental wounds will be excluded, due to the immediate prerequisite within the proposal. This exclusion is detrimental to our collective objective to eliminate stigma, to ensure that those who have sustained mental wounds are assured that the pervasive health insidious stigma does not relegate the seriousness of their sacrifice, as this does, to a lower state of recognition. There must be equality in acknowledgement of all serious wounds, physical or mental.

I would respectfully remind the committee members that mental wounds are just as lethal as physical wounds. We must acknowledge the grim fact that more of Canada's sons and daughters have died as a consequence of suicide than the nation's sacrifice during the war on terror. Without effective intervention, this number will only rise. Furthermore, we must be cognizant that these intensely tragic numbers speak only to one segment of the issue, as Veterans Affairs Canada does not track suicides within the veteran community. These numbers may be exponentially higher.

We know now that mental wounds, when incurred during an operational period, are often not recognized or acknowledged by the individual until returning home and the cycle of despair begins to ravage the mind, adversely affecting self and the family unit. We also understand that many of our heroes suppress acknowledging the seriousness of the wound, fearful of stigma and career-ending ramifications, until the mental discord appears and finally the treatment is brought forward.

We must consider all serious national sacrifice equally. It should matter not whether you have sustained a physical or a mental wound. Should it not qualify for the prerequisites of the CIB because a mental wound is bereft of the need for immediate hospitalization? Amendments can be made to respect the national sacrifice of those who have sustained mental wounds as a consequence of their service, so that they, too, will be included in this compensatory proposal.

In regard to caregivers, this too is a positive step forward, aligning the NVC provisions with that of the Pension Act and providing annual respite for primary caregivers who have been consigned to a lifetime of caring for seriously disabled veterans.

Once again, however, caregivers who are caring for veterans who have sustained serious mental wounds have virtually been excluded. Spouses who care for their husbands 24/7, fearing the spectre of suicide on a daily basis, are not accorded the opportunity for dedicated respite while knowing their loved ones are cared for.

There must be equality and recognition that the impact that a mental wound bears upon the caregiver is extraordinary, that the threat of the wound manifesting catastrophically is clear and present long after a physical wound has been determined non-life threatening. I would encourage you to recognize the travail that caregivers of those with mental wounds are experiencing. Amend the legislation to include the plight of families who are dealing with mental wounds.

Regarding the retirement income supplementary benefit, this has been the cornerstone principle of the CVA since conception, that is, the plight of our disabled veterans when reaching aged 65. I repeat, it's for disabled veterans, ladies and gentlemen. The foundation of the RISB, a comparative to the average Canadian's post-retirement income at 70% of 75%, negates the disabled veteran's quotient completely. We're not speaking of ordinary Canadians; we're speaking of disabled veterans who are bereft of a lifetime of opportunity to prepare for retirement. Disabled veterans do not retire from being disabled. Indeed, as they grow older, they require additional help.

We believe there should be no reduction and that the 70% of 75% equation does not respect the needs of a disabled veteran. The RISB should ensure the quality of life provisions to which they have been accorded, the foundation of VAC's mandate, are maintained at 75%. We also find it disingenuous to include a permanent impairment allowance—an award that recognizes the fact that seriously disabled veterans require financial support to cope with their wounds in addition to the 75% ELB or SISIP provision—into the harmonization of these income prerequisites. Once again, these are seriously impaired veterans. To negate the PIA mandate through a RISB clawback formula—despite the fact they are still seriously disabled and have already sustained a significant physical reduction—when reaching age 65 will consign them to lives of near poverty.

We also have grave concerns about the proposals to give 50% of 70% of prior earnings to dependants should the veteran pass prior to the spouse. We find this is grotesquely insufficient. There must be equality in recognition of national sacrifice. A serious life-altering wound must be treated with the same level of respect, regardless of whether it's physical or mental in nature.

I have come here today to attempt to convince you to fulfill this obligation, this sacred obligation to the valiant who have sustained serious mental wounds and to their families who have offered such profound sacrifice on behalf of this magnificent nation.

Thank you.

[Bradley K. White]

I, too, grew up with veterans. My grandfather was a company commander in Dieppe. He served with Lieutenant-Colonel Merritt, who received the Victoria Cross for his actions in Pourville. I knew Mr. Merritt when I was a young lieutenant, and I listened to his stories, so I know them well.

We all hope that what we're doing here is serving our veterans and making their lives better. That's why we do this. We're not politicians. That's why when we address you, we address you collectively as the government, regardless of what party you belong to.

As was mentioned, Robert Borden said years ago that it's the obligation of the government to look after those they send away to serve. We in the legion believe very much that it's the government's obligation to do that. You are all government to us. So our position is to advocate on behalf of those veterans to make sure that after they've served, they're looked after, to make sure that they have a healthy and productive life after they've been injured. That is our aim.

Is it incremental? Yes, it's incremental. But remember, 2006 and Bill C-55 in 2011 were the first steps to improve and breathe some life into the charter. We now have some more incremental steps in Bill C-58, which have been incorporated into Bill C-59, to do that again. We won't stop pushing. We said that in our statement.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all the witnesses for coming here this afternoon. It's great to see you here again.

Before I ask a question, I want to make a few points to clarify certain things.

First of all, the veterans ombudsman who was here this morning did not mention half measures. He said, actually, that it was a good step in the right direction. I think it was Mr. Forbes who mentioned half measures.

What I would really like to stress is that we can play political games here and point fingers at each other—I can point fingers at someone—and say, “Do you remember what happened in 1994-95?” But we're not here for this. I am really very proud and happy that I have been able, by my own choice, to serve on this committee since the beginning of this Parliament. I did not grow up here in Canada, but I grew up among veterans. I remember my grandfather on my mother's side—not very well, but I remember that he was missing his right arm. He lost it in the war of 1920, and he already was married and had children. He came back and had another three or four. My mother had 11 siblings.

I heard all sorts of war stories. Growing up, I truly believed that one day I would go to war and fight like these guys about whom I heard stories. It took time to grow up and realize what war was. I realized how fortunate my generation, born after the war, was and how grateful we should be for those who went to fight, those who served after, and those who are serving today—we have some of them at the table here—to protect us: my generation, the generation of my children and grandchildren, and I hope many generations to come.

We may have different political agendas, but we are here to serve the veterans. You gentlemen remember that when we were doing the review of the Veterans Charter, the question asked of many groups that appeared here—and several times the question came from me—was, if you had to choose, what would be the first things you would change in the Veterans Charter?

I'm not pointing fingers at all those members of Parliament in 2006 who decided, without any opposition, to pass the charter. They had great intentions; some things came up. That's why it is a living charter; that's why we have to look at it. Truly, I would not like to feel, after all the work at the committee....

You probably know the story from Greek mythology of the Greek king Sisyphus, who was punished and had to roll a boulder up a hill and never made it: the boulder would roll back. I hope we are going in the right direction and addressing the issues. I hope that's what we've done.

I think that what is in Bill C-59 is addressing the issues that were raised—not all of them—and my understanding and that of those who were at the committee is that the agreement was that it would be an incremental change.

I would love to have you address this and comment on the issues I raised.

[Debbie Lowther]

Our membership is encouraged by the provisions in Bill C-59. As I said earlier, we look at them as first steps.

As Mr. White mentioned, the new Veterans Charter was designed as a living document, and we haven't seen a lot of life in that document. It's nice to see some of the improvements being made. We are encouraged, and we're hoping that they are just first steps. There's still work to be done.

[Bradley K. White]

I suppose we'll start it off. Thank you for the question.

I'll answer in English.

One of the issues we have is that in 2006, when the new Veterans Charter came in, it came in as a living document. We didn't see any life in the document until 2011, when we had Bill C-55. When it came in it actually put something back into the new Veterans Charter. That was a start.

Bill C-58, now incorporated in this Bill C-59, is another start, we believe, in making the changes necessary to the new Veterans Charter, to make it a document that's alive, that's living, that's meeting the needs of the veterans at this time.

There will be more needs for veterans as we go down into the future. Bill C-59 does not fix all the issues or gaps in the new Veterans Charter right now. It's a start, and we're positive that this start will keep going. We want to see more. The new Veterans Charter has to continue to evolve to meet the needs of the veterans.

Wayne has indicated that PTSD is the tip of the iceberg at this stage of the game. It is the tip of the iceberg. Latent onset of PTSD is going to happen. We have not seen the full extent of what's going to happen with the mental illness problems we have out there on the street right now. We're going to have to take the steps necessary to address those in the future.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

For the second or third time, thank you, Mr. Chair. All things come in threes.

I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. You are the second group that we are receiving as part of the study on Bill C-59, or at least the part relating to veterans.

You all seem to be unanimous and all seem to support the provisions included in Bill C-59, which was previously Bill C-58. This morning we heard from the ombudsman and another group of veterans who described this as a half measure or a step in the right direction.

In a short sentence or in one word, I would like you to give us your understanding, perhaps more directly, of the provisions we are currently studying in the context of Bill C-58 or Bill C-59. Are you encouraged or disappointed when you read these provisions? Obviously, this is the first bill that follows on the report tabled almost a year ago now. How do the members you represent feel about this? Are they encouraged, shocked or disappointed? I will leave it up to each of you to perhaps describe this in a short sentence.

[Debbie Lowther, Co-founder, Veterans Emergency Transition Services]

Well, thank you, first of all, for asking VETS Canada to attend this evening and asking me to speak on behalf of the organization.

VETS Canada is an organization whose mission is to assist homeless, at-risk, and in-crisis veterans of the military and the RCMP. My husband, who is a veteran, and I founded the organization in 2010 after he stumbled across a veteran whom he had served with who was homeless in Halifax.

During the past five years we've had the privilege of helping over 500 veterans across the country. We've expanded from Halifax right to the west coast. In June of last year we were awarded a contract with Veterans Affairs as service providers in the field of outreach to homeless, at-risk, and in-crisis veterans. In the past five years, as I said, we've had the opportunity and the privilege to assist over 500 veterans.

One thing we've noticed is that every veteran's story is different. Every veteran's set of circumstances is different. There's no cookie-cutter solution to helping any one of them. One common denominator we see in our work is that the men and women we've assisted have not made a successful transition from their life of service to their civilian life.

A great deal of effort and rigorous training goes into preparing the men and women to serve their country, and we feel it would be wonderful if they were given the same amount of training and preparedness on the other end, when their career is coming to an end, particularly for those who are being medically released, as it is unexpected.

The reason we're here today is to discuss division 17 of Bill C-59. It's the opinion of VETS Canada that the retirement income security benefit, the critical injury benefit, and the caregiver's benefit are all positive first steps. We do support that they be passed; however, we have some concerns about whether or not they will be the end of the road. It's our hope and our wish that they remain just that, first steps. There is a lot of improvement there.

We feel that the retirement income security benefit could be higher than the 70%. We would like to see the critical injury benefit be more inclusive of those men and women who suffer with OSIs, as these injuries, generally, do not immediately present themselves.

Something that would be nice to see included in the caregiver's benefit would be training for caregivers—and I'll take off my VETS Canada hat and put on my caregiver hat for a moment. My husband had PTSD, and when I was his caregiver—and I still at times am his caregiver—I didn't know if I was doing the right thing. Caregivers need training. They could be doing more harm than good, so it would be nice to see training for caregivers included in that caregivers benefit. Along with the amount of the benefit itself, it would be nice to see it revert to something a little closer to the attendance allowance.

In summary, as I said, VETS Canada does support the passage of Bill C-59, but it is our hope that it remains just first steps and that there's room for improvement. We like to say: Is it better than what was on the table yesterday? Yes. Is there room for improvement? Yes.

Thank you.

[Maj Wayne Mac Culloch, National President, Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee—

thank you for allowing me to testify before you today. Veterans are grateful for the attention you have given to their needs and your work in addressing a number of shortfalls in the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, commonly called the new Veterans Charter, and its attendant regulations.

The 14 recommendations of your report last summer have provided a significant first step in redressing gaps in current legislation meant to assure the well-being of veterans by dealing with the top issues facing our most severely disabled veterans. While the new benefits for veterans, contained in Bill C-59, constitute another step in the right direction, it is but a small step and does not fully address the long-standing top priorities of veterans and their associations.

To recap, for the past several years traditional veterans' groups have been unanimous and consistent with regard to their top three priorities: the earnings loss benefit must be improved to provide 100% of pre-release income, continue for life, and include increases for projected career earnings for a Canadian Forces member; the maximum disability award must be increased consistent with what is provided to injured civilian workers who receive general damages in law court; and the current inequality with regard to earnings loss benefits for class A and class B reservists, those with fewer than 180 days, for injuries attributable to service, must cease.

Further key shortfalls to be addressed were outlined in the assembly's latest letter to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, dated July 18, 2014.

The provisions of the new Veterans Charter unreasonably constrain the number of disabled veterans who are able to qualify for appropriate levels of entitlement to this important allowance.

The exceptional incapacity allowance concept, founded under the Pension Act, should be incorporated in the new Veterans Charter. This allowance has traditionally addressed the impact of the disabilities suffered by 100% veteran pensioners, with reference to their difficulty to cope given their overall capacity. Introducing the exceptional incapacity allowance into the new Veterans Charter would augment the limitations of the permanent impairment allowance, particularly in circumstance where a seriously disabled veteran confronts the ravages of age.

In order to recognize the caregiving requirements that many disabled veterans confront to cope with their incapacities, the attendant's allowance provisions of the Pension Act should be added to the new Veterans Charter, in recognition of the financial costs faced by many families in this context. The new Veterans Charter should acknowledge that veterans with dependants should receive a higher level of compensation, either through the augmentation of the lump-sum disability award or through an increase in the earnings loss benefit for such veterans and their families.

Bill C-59, as it currently stands, does not fully address any of these recommendations. Specifically, the retirement income security benefit provides for a maximum of 70% of pre-age-65 earnings loss benefit, which itself is a maximum of 75% of pre-tax, pre-release salary, or, when you do the math, 52.25% of the pre-tax, pre-release salary, without any provision for projected Canadian Armed Forces career earnings increases. A survivor would receive 50% of the retirement income security benefit. This falls far short of the recommended 100% of pre-release salary, with projected career earnings increases.

Let's put some numbers on this. A regular force corporal currently earns $56,568 per annum before taxes. The earnings loss benefit would reduce that figure to $42,426. After age 65, the pre-tax amount of the retirement income security benefit would be $29,700. His survivor would receive $14,850 annually. Both of these amounts are well below the poverty line.

Note that these are maximum amounts, and under Bill C-59 they would be reduced by unspecified other amounts. What quality of life could the veteran or the survivor expect to experience under these circumstances? This alarming situation will be further exacerbated by other government cost-shedding actions, such as the current readjustment of cost sharing for the public service health care plan, which many veterans depend on for supplemental health insurance. It will be changed from the current 25% participant and 75% government share to a 50-50 scheme. Where will veterans and their survivors find the means to keep pace with this and other cost increases under the retirement income security benefit?

The solution to the quality of life that disabled veterans deserve lies not in what Bill C-59 proposes, but rather in adoption of the long-standing recommendations of veterans. It is our hope that this new benefit is but the first step towards meeting our stated needs. The Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping therefore supports inclusion of the retirement income security benefit in Bill C-59, but calls on government to commit to meeting the full requirement in its next session.

The family caregiver relief benefit is a welcomed addition to the suite of benefits available under the new Veterans Charter. However, at $7,238, it falls far short of a similar benefit under the Canadian Armed Forces compensation and benefit instructions, article 211.04, which provides $36,500. This discrepancy has not been explained, and an 80% reduction in assistance cannot fail to have dramatic consequences on the disabled veteran and his or her family. While the association accepts this benefit as another small step in the right direction, it once again calls on government to adjust the family caregiver relief benefit to the amount of compensation and benefit instructions, article 211.04, while maintaining the current breadth of applicability and duration of such payments.

The critical injury benefit is another new benefit available to those who have suffered traumatic injury requiring immediate hospital treatment. While it is welcomed as yet another small step toward improving the quality of life for those injured in service to Canada, the government’s rationale for this unexpected benefit has received a mixed response from association members. It appears to exclude those who suffer from operational stress injuries unless those injuries are immediately incapacitating. The history of this type of injury generally carries with it a period of latency, thus denying the benefit’s support to its sufferers.

This differentiation would drive a further wedge between those with physical injuries and those with operational stress injuries, both of which have severe impacts on the families of the injured. Previous strides in gaining acceptance of operational stress injuries as a bona fide injury could be nullified by the proposed immediate physical trauma and later OSI distinctions. While still supported, the association would like further work to occur to close this apparent gap.

I would like to bring a further concern to your attention, namely the frequent references in Bill C-59 to “prescribed sources”, the determination of the value of prescribed sources, “prescribed factors”, and what constitutes a single and sudden occurrence. These, and similar phrases, leave much of the value of the new benefits in doubt.

As occurred in the permanent impairment allowance, Governor in Council regulations so restricted the availability of the benefit to veterans, and limited the majority of approvals to its lowest level, that it had little of its expected impacts. Veterans would like to be assured that the provisions of the new section 2.1 of the new Veterans Charter will be amply reflected in the creation of new regulations and revision of existing ones.

In summary, the members of the association support the provisions of Bill C-59 that seek to amend the new Veterans Charter, and urge its speedy passage through Parliament to royal assent. However, significant gaps remain in the support that disabled veterans need from government. The association wishes to impress on all parliamentarians the importance of these gaps and the speed with which they must be closed.

Thank you for your attention.

[Bradley K. White, Dominion Secretary, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion]

Honourable Chair and members of the committee, good evening, and thank you.

I do agree with you, Chair, that 632 is the friendliest branch in all of Ottawa.

It's a great pleasure to appear once again in front of the committee. I'm pleased to speak on behalf of our Dominion president, Mr. Tom Eagles, and our 300,000 members and their families.

This evening, we will do our presentation in English. However, we have provided a copy of our brief in both official languages.

The legion has been asked to discuss specifically division 17 of part 3, which amends the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act to add a purpose statement to the act; improve the transition process of Canadian Forces members and veterans to civilian life; establish a retirement income security benefit to provide eligible veterans and their survivors with a continued financial benefit after the age of 65 years; 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 finally, to 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 portions of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act as a consequence of the establishment of the critical injury benefit.

Please note that our comments are directed specifically to this section of Bill C-59 and not to the entire omnibus bill.

The Royal Canadian Legion is the only veteran service organization that assists veterans and their families with representation to Veterans Affairs Canada and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

The legion's advocacy program is core to our mission, and we have been assisting veterans since 1926 through our legislated mandate in both the Pension Act and the new Veterans Charter. Please note that veterans do not have to be legion members to receive our assistance; we provide it free of charge.

Our national service bureau network provides representation, starting with their first applications to Veterans Affairs Canada and through all three levels of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Through the legislation, the legion has access to service health records and departmental files to provide comprehensive yet independent representation at no cost.

Last year our service officers prepared and represented disability claims on behalf of over 3,000 veterans to VAC and the VRAB. There is no other veterans group with this kind of direct contact and interaction with, provision of support to, and feedback from veterans, their families and, of course, the caregivers.

When it comes to serving veterans and their families, the legion continues to be the only veterans organization in Canada advocating for and providing assistance to all veterans.

The legion recognizes that progress is being made for veterans and their families in this budget and recommends that the NCVA provisions of Bill C-59 be passed as soon as possible. Is it everything we have been advocating for? Does it answer all of the 14 ACVA recommendations? No, it does not, but it is a very positive step forward.

This bill lays out important enhancements that will improve the care and benefits provided to veterans and their families, especially for our veterans who have turned or will be turning 65 in the very near future. We need to ensure that they have financial benefits beyond age 65 for life, including that provision for their survivors as well.

However, we do have many questions on how the retirement income security benefit, the RISB, is calculated, and until we receive and review the complete policies on the RISB, the critical injury benefit, and the family caregiver relief benefit, we will not see how adequate these benefits will be to our veterans and their families.

Our principal concerns remain that the maximum disability award must be increased to be consistent with what is provided to injured civilian workers who receive general damages in law courts. As well, our concern with the family caregiver relief benefit is that it does not adequately compensate a spouse who has to give up a full-time job to become a caregiver. What is proposed is a respite benefit. Most families today are dual-income families and sometimes that service member works two jobs to support the family, so in essence when he gets injured three full-time wages are lost. We would prefer to see something akin to the Pension Act's attendance allowance reinstated.

As I previously stated, Bill C-59, in division 17 of part 3, does not answer all of the 14 ACVA recommendations. The Royal Canadian Legion will not rest until all these recommendations have been addressed and adopted, and we will not cease in our efforts to push the government to honour its obligations.

We have not shied away from making our stance on these issues known. We have shared our position paper, “Veterans Matter”, with all Canadians to encourage an informed debate on veterans' issues in the future.

I want to address the issues of communications and accessibility.

The new Veterans Charter was developed to meet the needs of modern veterans. It is based on modern disability management principles. It focuses on rehabilitation and successful transition.

It must be stated that the legion, while endorsing the new Veterans Charter as it was adopted in 2006, has also been steadfast in our advocacy for its change to better meet the lifelong needs of our veterans and their families. We all have an obligation to understand the complexities and interrelationships, and to inform about and explain the new Veterans Charter for the people who it concerns. Our veterans and their families deserve absolutely nothing less.

The new Veterans Charter and the enhanced new Veterans Charter Act are comprehensive and very complex. Our veterans and their families need to know what programs are available to assist them and how to access them, whether they are financial, rehabilitation, health services, and/or family care programs. The government needs to ensure that resources and programs are in place to meet their needs and to review the accessibility to these programs, while ensuring that front-line staff are available—and knowledgeable—to assist veterans and their families. This can never become a self-serve system.

Most veterans and their families do not have a good understanding of the new Veterans Charter. I would suggest that this highlights the ineffectiveness of the government's communication of the programs and services available under the new Veterans Charter for our injured veterans and their families. What is required is proactive communication to all veterans across this country to ensure that they are aware of the financial compensation, rehabilitation programs, health care services, and the family care programs that are available and of how to access them.

Lastly, it is also time for all of us to understand the new Veterans Charter and the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act. This should be a priority. Our veterans need to know not only the weaknesses of the programs but the strengths behind the legislation: the programs, the services, and the benefits. We, too, can help our veterans and their families.

Since commencing our advocacy in 1926, the legion's advocacy and programming efforts continue to evolve to meet the changing demographics while supporting our traditional veteran community. However, notwithstanding the capacity of the legion, we certainly believe that the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada have a responsibility to ensure that policies, practices, and programs supported through a sustainable research program are accessible and meet the unique needs of all veterans, with a goal of enabling the healthy transition of all our veterans and their families through this very challenging, changing, and sometimes difficult life course.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention our World War II veterans and post-World War II veterans who are now seeking assistance through the legion for access to the veterans independence program. These veterans are often frail, and they are approaching the end of their life. They are a very proud group of people who have never applied to the government for any type of disability benefit assistance, and now, because they want to remain independent in their own homes rather than going into a long-term care facility, they cannot access the VIP and benefits for frailty because they do not have an established eligibility for a disability or a lower income.

Last October, we sent a high-priority list of resolutions to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, including a resolution that all veterans be deemed eligible for VIP benefits based on need, irrespective of their having established disability entitlement or low-income status. We urge the government to action this resolution without delay. We understand that the response to these resolutions will be forthcoming from the department very soon.

We agree that the passage of Bill C-59, and particularly those provisions that affect the new Veterans Charter, is a step in the right direction. Let me thank the committee for the work it does on behalf of our veterans. The legion appreciates the opportunity to come before the committee to brief you on our perspective on issues of concern to Canada's veterans.

I would also at this time like to extend to the committee the opportunity to visit our national headquarters, which we call Legion House. It would be opportunity for us to provide you with a full brief on how the legion is one of Canada's great institutions, and how we support Canadians, our veterans, and our communities.

Once again, thank you. Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Welcome to the 51st meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

This evening, we are continuing our study of division 17 of part 3 of Bill C-59, An Act to Implement Certain Provisions of the Budget Tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and Other Measures.

During the first hour this evening we will hear from Mr. Bradley White, Dominion secretary of the Dominion Command, and Mr. Ray McInnis, director of the service bureau, Dominion Command, both from the Royal Canadian Legion. I want them to note that I'm wearing my legion pin from the friendliest branch in the region, 632.

We will also hear from Mr. Wayne MacCulloch, national president of the Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping, as well as Ms. Debbie Lowther, co-founder of the Veterans Emergency Transition Services.

This part of the meeting will end at 7:30 p.m. We will then have a brief pause.

During the second hour of this meeting we will hear columnist, media personality, and academic researcher, retired captain Sean Bruyea. We'll also hear from Mr. Derryk Fleming, national administration member of the 31 CBG Veterans Well-being Network; Mr. Brian McKenna, representative from the B.C. Veterans Well-being Network; and Mr. Perry Gray, editor-in-chief of VeteranVoice.info. We also have Mr. Michael Blais, president and founder of Canadian Veterans Advocacy.

Are you making four different presentations or just one?

You have 10 minutes each.

The legion starts.

Opposition Motion—Federal Science Research

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Yes, I am alarmed, Mr. Speaker.

There is a new phenomenon in this city that I have not seen before. In the past, I found that when public servants retired, they were somewhat discreet and did not get actively involved in political parties. However, what I find today is rather surprising in that when they retire, they very rapidly join our party. They want to get rid of the Conservative government because of the way they have been treated, and it is not just the scientists but other public servants as well. I have mentioned this before.

In Bill C-4, the government totally put in shambles the laws governing the relationship with our public service. In the current bill before the House, Bill C-59, it is the same thing. The Conservatives would give the President of the Treasury Board total power to decide unilaterally, without negotiation, how to arrive at a sick leave program. It is not through negotiations anymore.

What has happened in the last few years is that our federal public service has been totally mistreated, and it is not prepared to accept that anymore, including the scientists.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Look, I actually think this is a good debate. You pay attention in Parliament to the debate over Bill C-59, over the different parties and the platform. Not to be too analytical about the politics of this, I think there's a very good debate in the country right now. I think there's a pretty clear choice about where we're going. I think Canada is in a very good place. If you look at KPMG's assessment, you see that the costs to create a business in Canada are 46% lower than in the United States.

I have a quotation that I come to often, by former Secretary of State and New York senator Hillary Clinton, who says:

Canadian middle class incomes are now higher than in the United States. They are working fewer hours for more pay…living longer on average, and facing less income inequality.

It's true that Canada is doing well. We have incredible challenges, of course. It's a competitive global economy. The manufacturing sector has some very specific and acute challenges in particular sectors. We have to work well with provincial governments, who sometimes are working at counter purposes to us in terms of lowering costs and being competitive. But we have to work together to make sure that we're maximizing the quality of our investments in infrastructure. I say this often, but this infrastructure question is important, which is why it comes up often in question period. It's so essential.

We're the second largest country in the world in size, but 37th largest in population. That's a gap, but there is also a gap in our fiscal capacity to make sure that we are all connected together as a country and that we're taking full advantage of that connectivity for economic benefit. It's why we have to work really well with provinces to build the infrastructure we need to be economically competitive going forward, east and west and north and south.

It is really important that we stay competitive, that we be fiscally responsible, that we balance the budget so that we have the fiscal flexibility to have the programs we have, such as the infrastructure program, the Building Canada fund, the gas tax fund, and all these programs, so that we can invest in infrastructure, be competitive, be cost-competitive, have world-class infrastructure, improve our quality of life, and be able to compete.

The policies, for example, in the auto sector that are in place in Mexico are not something we should be looking to import into Canada—billions of dollars in corporate welfare, lower-than-minimum wage standards of pay for workers. We need to make sure that we have good quality jobs in the auto sector and that we're competitive in other ways, and the only way we're going to stay competitive is if we maintain our fiscal discipline so that we can keep taxes low and can compete in other areas in terms of quality productivity, quality employment, and competitive cost pressures.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

It's not a post hoc ergo propter hoc—the rooster crows and the sun rises, so according to the rooster, it causes the sun to rise—situation. There's no direct line on a graph we can point to. But it's self-evident that firms that are able to upgrade their equipment and expand their capacity and to invest in their capacity over the fullness of time will become more efficient, get their products to market at a more competitive price point, and be able to expand and to sell their products around the world. We know that the Americans are doing this. We know that our European competitors are doing this. We want to make sure that we have the tools in the hands of firms.

It's so critical, by the way, as a tax tool for investment. As an example, I was with Premier Clark in Vancouver last week. As I pointed out, we've opened up the door for the LNG industry in British Columbia with this public policy in this year's budget. There are 19 LNG projects on the table in British Columbia. Not all of them will go forward, but we hope that some of them will. But for Petronas this is possibly a $36 billion investment for my province, British Columbia. Whether or not that investment goes forward at all is in part based on whether or not they would have this competitive tool. So this standing up of an entire industry and a $36 billion investment in one project could be lost if we didn't have this investment and this provision in this year's budget. There enough is a reason to support Bill C-59.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Thank you all for your cooperation.

The 51st meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs will be tonight in this room from 6:30 to 8:30.

I want to thank our witnesses, Mr. Parent and Mr. Forbes.

I particularly want to thank Mr. Forbes for complimenting the committee on its work. I took good note of that.

This evening we will continue our study on division 17 of part 3 of Bill C-59.

In our first hour, we will hear from the Royal Canadian Legion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting back to order. We are resuming 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.

I want to welcome all of our officials here this morning. Thank you so much for being with us.

Colleagues, I've received some feedback in terms of priorities, so this is how I will proceed as chair. We will do part 1 first, then we will proceed to part 2, and then we will proceed to part 3. In part 3 we will do divisions 1, 6, 7, 10, 18, and 20. If we have time, and that's a big if, we will do part 3 divisions 8 and 19. Those are the sections that committee members have indicated are priorities for them.

I want to welcome our officials for part 1. I ask you to make an extremely brief opening statement. Members have all had extensive briefings on the bill itself, so we'll just do a brief introduction of part 1 and then we'll go to members' questions.

Mr. McGowan, I think you'll be doing the statement.

[Brian Forbes, Chairman, National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

NCVA welcomes this opportunity to speak to this committee this morning on Bill C-59, with particular reference to that portion of the legislation dealing with the new Veterans Charter reform.

I first wish to state that it has become readily apparent over recent months that there have been a number of significant developments positively impacting on the operation of Veterans Affairs Canada and the department's relationship with the veterans community. We would be remiss if we did not commend the minister, Erin O'Toole, and the deputy, Walt Natynczyk, on their proactive engagement in the overall reform of the charter and the enhancement of the administrative culture within VAC.

With specific reference to charter reform, it is fair to say that significant momentum and substantial traction have been developed through the various recommendations brought down by the minister, culminating in the establishment of the current statutory amendments before Parliament, which clearly are the government's attempt to respond to their proposals made by this standing committee, the Veterans Ombudsman, the Veterans Consultation Group, the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group, and our NCVA organizations.

Unfortunately, many of the minister's announcements and proposed legislative amendments reflect, in our judgment, half measures and are clearly not fully responsive to the comprehensive recommendations made by this committee and the aforementioned multiple advisory groups. After years, however, of what I have described as unacceptable inertia within VAC, there are indeed solid indications that the first phase of positive, incremental change is taking place. It remains our mandate, and I might respectfully suggest the responsibility of this committee and veteran stakeholders, to maintain pressure on the government to complete this vital initiative in addressing the outstanding inequities which still remain in the charter.

Mr. Chair, I would now like to make a number of general comments on the bill and the impact it will have on the new Veterans Charter.

First, the clear focus on seriously disabled veterans is commendable as it has consistently been the position of NCVA that the highest priority of the veterans community and the government must be seriously injured veterans.

Second, it is self-evident upon a review of the substantive provisions of the statutory amendments that the devil will be in the details as there are a number of references in the legislation to regulations and policy guidelines that have yet to be formulated to support the general provisions of the act. It is my opinion that until these regulations are finalized, it will not be possible to evaluate the precise eligibility criteria for the newly proposed major benefits and the “factors to be considered”, which are often mentioned in the bill, in the administration of the new law. It will be incumbent on veteran stakeholders and indeed this standing committee to monitor closely the draft regulations and policy guidelines to ensure that the substantive provisions of the act are not diluted or unduly restricted.

Third, it is also readily apparent that budgetary constraints still exist. It is our opinion, upon a review of the minister's announcements and the statutory amendments, that the proposals have been structured to fit into the budgetary envelope, resulting in proposed benefits that are targeted to specific cohort veterans rather than the veteran population at large. Unfortunately, in our view, the government fixation with balancing the budget in this election year remains a restraint on the complete new Veterans Charter reform at this time.

Fourth, as I stated to the minister through recent correspondence and through my presentation to the veterans summit, much more needs to be done to rectify the voids that have been readily identified in the charter. The present state of development cannot be considered a total fait accompli, but merely a significant first stage of remedial legislation.

Mr. Chair, I know we're under certain time constraints and my brief is fairly lengthy. I've made it available to members of the committee, but I'd like to highlight some of my concerns with regard to the bill and those areas where there are still gaps and inequities in the charter which have yet to be addressed in this legislation.

First, the earnings loss benefit must be elevated from 75% of former military income to 100% in accordance with the long-standing and consistent recommendations of the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group, the Veterans Consultation Group, and NCVA—or at least to 90%, as proposed by my friend, the Veterans Ombudsman. The current reduction of 25% in income is unacceptable, particularly given that this loss of essential revenue is imposed when veterans and their families face a period of rehabilitation as they attempt to re-establish themselves in Canadian society.

This is particularly material to those who are permanently incapacitated. In this regard, the career probable-earnings approach identified by this committee should be implemented to ensure the true impact of the projected career income loss is recognized. This proposal can be implemented by further reform of the PIA or the PIAS, or alternatively by a separate evaluation based on the mechanisms used by the Canadian civil courts to ascertain future loss of income for severely injured plaintiffs

Second, the SISIP long-term disability policy needs to be eliminated from veterans legislation and be applied only to non-service related disability.

Beyond the unnecessary duplication of the programs—SISIP and ELB—the compensation of veterans and their dependants should not be a function of the insurance industry, whose mandate in many situations is to minimize exposure of insurers' policies when applied to injured or disabled individuals. I speak more of that in the paper, and I'll leave that to your reading at a separate time.

Third, disability awards commensurate with civil court general damages should be facilitated by VAC.

It is to be noted that in lieu of implementing this long-standing recommendation, the minister has opted to propose a new critical injury benefit in the amount of $70,000. This CIB is limited to the specific circumstances of a transitionally incapacitated veteran and to high-end disability award recipients. It is noteworthy in this regard that the CIB is fraught with definitional issues as to who is eligible for this benefit and what factors are to be considered by adjudicators in determining the scope and extent of this new provision. Although we support the establishment of the innovative CIB in recognition of the plight that seriously disabled veterans confront, the choice of VAC to compensate only this particular class of veterans, as opposed to incrementally increasing all pensions in the disability award system, is of concern. I might add that this recommendation has been consistently brought forward over the last six or seven years not only by this committee, but by all of the other advisory groups that have looked at the charter.

Fourth, improved access to permanent impairment allowance and entitlement to higher-grade levels of the allowance needs further evaluation. It will be recalled that the Veterans Ombudsman, Mr. Parent, in his empirical study of the charter identified that 50% of seriously disabled veterans were not receiving the PIA, and consequently the PIAS, and that 90% of these veterans receiving the award were only obtaining grade three, the lowest grade. The minister's proposal to widen the regulatory definition of PIA eligibility is commendable, but once again does not fully satisfy all aspects of the reform of this important allowance. This is particularly so for those seriously disabled veterans who fail to satisfy the criteria for PIA, but it is also of great significance when one considers that the amount of the PIA is a major element of the new retirement income security benefit, as was pointed out by Mr. Butler this morning.

We continue to strongly feel that our proposal to the standing committee in this regard is the best approach to improving this access to PIA. That is, once a veteran is deemed to be permanently incapacitated, the disability award received by such a veteran should be the major determinant in assessing his or her grade level of PIA. If you're over 78% disability award, you should be entitled to a grade one PIA. Between 48% and 78%, you should be at grade two. It's simple, straightforward, and triggered by the disability award.

Fifth, the family caregiver relief benefit requires further re-evaluation as it fails to comprehensively provide adequate financial support for the families of seriously disabled veterans where significant needs of attendants must be provided by a caregiver. This benefit, as brought forward by the minister, is commendable insofar as it goes, as a targeted support to allow caregivers appropriate respite or relief, but in my judgment, it represents only one element of the overall concerns confronting the caregivers of seriously disabled veterans in need of attendants. Such families are also facing, in many cases, a significant diminishment in income due to the fact that the caregiver spouse has been forced to give up his or her employment, and when coupled with the veteran's 25% loss of income, through SISIP or ELB, it often results in a financial crisis in the overall family budget.

I'll just be a couple of minutes, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[David Vigneault, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Security and Intelligence, Privy Council Office]

Thank you very much.

I would like to thank the chair and committee members for the opportunity to speak today about division 10 of part 3 of Bill C-59. This division proposes amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act in order to establish the parliamentary protective service.

My name is David Vigneault, and I am the assistant secretary to cabinet for Security and Intelligence in the Privy Council Office. I am appearing today with Isabelle Mondou, who is the counsel to the Clerk of the Privy Council Office.

At the outset, I would like to explain that the Privy Council Office has been closely involved in the drafting of the legislation being studied today, in collaboration with legal counsel from House of Commons and Senate administrations, the RCMP, Public Safety Canada and Justice Canada. Isabelle and I are here today to speak to this bill.

I would like to highlight, however, that the Privy Council Office is not directly involved in transition planning or operational decision making to establish the Parliamentary Protective Service. This work will be led by the incoming director of the Parliamentary Protective Service and the RCMP, in close cooperation with representatives from the Senate Protective Service and the House of Commons Protective Service, under the auspices of the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Speaker of the Senate. We are aware that transition planning is already under way, and that joint working groups have been established.

Our presentation relates to the bill, which is why we have been invited here today.

In terms of background, I would like to highlight that this legislation was drafted in response to the express will of Parliament. Following the terrorist attack on Parliament Hill on the 22nd of October 2014, the House of Commons and the Senate passed motions to invite the RCMP without delay to lead operational security throughout the parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill, while respecting the privileges, immunities, and power of the respective Houses, and ensuring the continued employment of existing and respected parliamentary security staff.

In April the economic action plan 2015 also highlighted the need for an integrated security force to ensure a seamless response to threats and stated that the government would bring forward legislative amendments to implement this integrated security force. Notably, the direction to integrate security forces is consistent with recommendations made by the Auditor General in June 2012 that the House of Commons and Senate administrations should examine “the possibility of moving toward a unified security force for the Parliamentary Precinct.” The Auditor General's report noted that unifying the security forces for Parliament Hill under a single point of command would make it possible to respond to situations more efficiently and effectively.

I will now turn things over to my colleague, Isabelle.

[Guy Parent, Veterans Ombudsman, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman]

Mr. Chair and committee members, thank you for inviting me to appear today to discuss division 17 of part 3 of Bill C-59.

Thank you for the opportunity, and I also want to thank you for the critical role that you have played in the past couple of years that has brought us to this juncture.

Your report, “The New Veterans Charter: Moving Forward”, published in June 2014, helped to focus the debate, establish priorities, and bring the veterans community together. lt also provided government with a unanimously approved blueprint for moving forward to address veterans' issues. lt cannot be denied that this is now happening.

In retrospect, I am particularly pleased that the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman's “Report on the New Veterans Charter and Actuarial Analysis”, published in October 2013, was able to assist with your work.

The proposed legislation represents significant progress on several issues of long-standing concern to veterans and their families. Because it is narrowing the gap on needed changes, it is important that it pass quickly and be implemented without delay.

The work of the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman has been effective to date because it is evidence-based. Results are measured against the fairness principles of adequacy—are the right programs and services in place to meet the needs of veterans and their families—the principle of sufficiency—are the right programs and services sufficiently resourced, in terms of both finance and human resources—and, finally, the principle of accessibility—are eligibility criteria creating unfair barriers, and can the benefits and services provided by VAC be accessed quickly and easily?

It is too early to offer you my opinion on the effectiveness of the proposed legislation. It is still before Parliament and its regulations have not been published, and as a result, implementation has not been initiated. However, I can share with you today my perspective, in principle. So let us look at the proposed initiative through the lens of fairness.

Do they address the fairness principles of adequacy, sufficiency, and accessibility? I believe that they do, in principle.

Adequacy is addressed by the new retirement income security benefit, which would provide moderately to severely disabled veterans with continued assistance in the form of monthly income support payments after age 65, therefore meeting a new need for the veterans and their families. lt also applies to the hiring of new front-line staff to improve one-on-one support for veterans.

Sufficiency is addressed in principle by the parity of the earnings loss benefit for injured reserve force veterans, who will now get the same minimum income support payment through the earnings loss program as regular force veterans do, again eliminating unfairness. The hiring of new front-line staff to improve one-on-one support for veterans also addresses sufficiency with regard to human resources.

Accessibility is addressed by the broadened eligibility criteria for the permanent impairment allowance, which, together with the PIA supplement, provides approximately $600 to $2,800 a month in lifelong monthly financial support to veterans whose employment potential and career advancement opportunities have been limited by a permanent service-related injury or illness. lt is also addressed by the proposed new critical injury benefit, which will provide a $70,000 tax-free award to support the most severely injured and ill Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans.

Going forward, while the changes put forward in Bill C-59 are going to have a positive effect on meeting the needs of veterans and their families, we need to address non-economic compensation for pain and suffering, transition from military to civilian life, and veteran-centric service delivery.

We also need to always remember that the new Veterans Charter is a living document needing timely reviews and updates.

Collectively, I think that we should be encouraged at this juncture that our efforts are making a difference in addressing long-standing issues affecting veterans and their families.

This does not mean that the gap has been closed, but it is narrowed. However, if these new initiatives are looked at as steps in a commitment to continuously improve and adapt benefits to the evolving needs of veterans and their families, then this is a very positive indicator for the future.

Mr. Chair, I would like to also inform the committee that just yesterday we published an update on the recent announcements in regard to your ACVA recommendations, on how they actually have improved things for veterans and their families. We have provided copies that will be distributed to the members afterwards.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm ready for your questions.

[Jean-Denis Fréchette]

Time will tell. This is what we will do in the future with our fiscal sustainability report later this year, in October actually. We will assess the impact of Bill C-59 on that, the kind of impacts Bill C-59 would have on the health systems of Canada.

One thing which is interesting is when the PBO did its update on the TFSA, we had a graph that showed the status quo and the $10,000 limit. In 2070, if the status quo had stayed, the contribution room would have been the same as with the $10,000. What I'm saying is that, if nothing had been done, we would not have that kind of discussion, but we would be at the same kind of contribution room in 2070.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses who came here today to discuss various provisions of Bill C-59 relating to public safety.

I have a number of questions about the new powers that have been given to the Minister of Public Safety with respect to the revocation of passports. I don't know if you can answer this question, but I'd like to know who determines whether a case falls within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Safety rather than the Minister of Immigration.

Who makes that decision?

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

Ms. MacEwen, you may be pleased to note that we were at a Chamber of Commerce event this morning and they cited workforce training as their number one priority for governments to take on going into the fall campaign.

Under some of your recommendations with regard to Bill C-59, I'm wondering what the gap is that is not being addressed with respect to companies taking on and training apprentices and bringing them up to their full Red Seal and Blue Seal qualifications. We're spending an extraordinary amount of money, both as government and as individuals across this country, with the promise that getting those skills will enable people to get into the areas where a skills shortage has been identified. What's the problem with Bill C-59 in terms of addressing that gap?

[Jean-Denis Fréchette, Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm the only witness who got some chocolate. I suspect it's a perk because I'm the last one to speak.

Mr. Chair, vice-chairs, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to assist with your study of Bill C-59, Part 1.

My comments are focused on the increase in the annual contribution limit for Tax-Free Savings Accounts (TFSAs), a measure the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer has studied in detail.

Before the changes proposed in Bill C-59, the fiscal impact of the TFSA program was expected to grow from $1.3 billion in 2015 to $54 billion in 2060. This is equal to a roughly eightfold increase as a share of the economy. The changes to the contribution limit proposed in Bill C-59 would increase the impact in 2060 by a further 20%, to $63.6 billion.

The proposed TFSA limit of $10,000 will not be indexed to inflation. This policy decision reduces total long-run fiscal costs by 15% in 2060.

The implications of the changes in Bill C-59 to the long-run sustainability of debt as a share of GDP will be assessed by the PBO in a future report, our fiscal sustainability report.

Over the long run, the TFSA program will become increasingly regressive, by income and especially by wealth, as you can see in Figures 2 and 3 of our presentation. By 2060, households in the top half of the income distribution will benefit by 20% more than households in the lower half. The wealthiest 50% of households are projected to benefit by 1.2 times more than the lower half.

Finally, Mr. Chair, as per your question the other day about the amount of new money or existing savings invested in TFSAs that involve the purchase of equity or bonds in Canadian companies, I can report that TFSA administrative data and other data sources that we have obtained so far cannot currently be used to determine whether investments in Canadian equities or bonds have increased due to TFSAs.

However, TFSA contributions are expected to originate mostly from the reallocation of existing savings and taxable accounts. External estimates of the responsiveness of savings through tax-preferred programs like the TFSA are mixed, but typically small. The PBO therefore expects that a comparatively small proportion of TFSA contributions will be the result of new savings. The TFSA is relatively new and the PBO has not yet independently assessed the savings behaviour of Canadians in response to the TFSA program, but this work could be pursued in a future study.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Bruce MacDonald, President and Chief Executive Officer, Imagine Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank you for your invitation and for giving me the floor today.

As an umbrella organization for the charitable and non-profit sector, Imagine Canada is pleased to share its thoughts with you regarding the provisions in Bill C-59 and the federal budget for our sector.

I do not have to remind the committee about the contribution of charitable and non-profit organizations in Canada and around the world, whether in terms of social services, arts and culture, amateur sport, the protection of the environment, education, health care and health research, international development or religious practices.

We keep saying that the charitable and non-profit sector is a major economic asset for Canada. It accounts for 8% of the GDP and employs over 2 million people from coast to coast.

In 2012, this same committee held extensive hearings on the issue of tax incentives for charitable donations in Canada. You heard the testimony of organizations from across the country, you learned about our challenges and possibilities, and you made recommendations to improve our financial health.

Every federal budget since 2012, including this one, has responded to your recommendations.

With regard to Bill C-59, it clarifies eligibility for qualified donee status for foreign charitable foundations. We see this mainly as a housekeeping measure, ensuring that the letter of the law is brought into line with the intent of a previous budget measure.

While we would have liked to see other measures from the 2015 budget included in this bill rather than waiting for subsequent legislation that may or may not come prior to the upcoming election, we appreciate that the department wants to take the time to get the particulars right.

We are pleased that the budget expanded the Mitacs internship program, in which charities and non-profits are now able to participate. Access to specialized research will help many organizations improve the work they do.

We look forward to two budget measures in particular that arose from this committee's hearings in 2012, and which we strongly support.

The first one of these will see a capital gains exemption when the proceeds of selling real estate or private company shares are donated to charity. Members of the committee will know that in terms of encouraging donations from the broadest array of citizens this was not Imagine Canada's top priority. That being said, those of you with whom we have spoken aIso know that we have strongly supported this measure and we were pleased to see it in this year's budget.

We are particularly pleased that the provision will apply to cash donations made from the proceeds of the sale of such assets. While addressing potential valuation issues, this will make it easier for donors to split their donations among a greater number of charities, if they so wish. lt will also make it easier for recipient charities, particularly small charities, to manage the receipt of such donations as they will be dealing with cash donations and will not have to manage assets that may be transferred to them. We are hopeful this measure will translate into hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of new donations over the next several years.

The budget also announced that charities will be allowed to invest their assets in limited partnerships. This will benefit the sector in two ways. First of all, foundations will be able to make investments, which they previously could not do, to diversify their portfolios. Second, operating charities and non-profits may themselves be involved in limited partnerships. The ability of foundations to invest in these ventures could free up significant amounts of capital. While we are waiting for specific details on how this will work, our initial estimate is that tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars could be available annually for partnerships involving charities and non-profits.

These two issues were among those about which this committee heard testimony and made recommendations. By our count, the only significant outstanding recommendation is the stretch tax credit for charitable giving, which we recognize would come at the highest cost to the treasury, as we believe it would have the greatest impact.

I hope that next year I'll be invited back to testify about the adoption of the stretch tax credit. ln the meantime, I want to recognize the significant progress that has been made in budget 2015.

Thank you.

[Angella MacEwen, Senior Economist, Social and Economic Policy, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you.

On behalf of the 3.3 million members of the Canadian Labour Congress, we want to thank you for the opportunity to present our views today. The CLC brings together workers from virtually all sectors of the Canadian economy, in all occupations, and in all parts of Canada.

Part 1 of Bill C-59, which we're speaking to today, would implement a wide variety of income tax and related measures. Today our comments will be limited to three provisions: reducing the required minimum amount for withdrawal annually from the RRIF; increasing the annual contribution limit for the tax-free savings accounts; and renewing the accelerated capital cost allowance for investment in machinery and equipment.

First of all, in terms of retirement security, the changes to the RRIF withdrawals and the increases to the tax-free savings accounts are measures that are both related to retirement security, but it will be no surprise to members of this committee that the Canadian Labour Congress feels that expanding the Canada pension plan is a much better solution to the looming retirement security crisis in Canada. Changes to RRIF withdrawals benefit older workers who already have RRSP savings, but they do little for workers without the means to save through RRSPs. This is significant because only a third of Canadians today contribute to RRSPs, and the unused RRSP contribution room reached $790 billion in 2013. Eleven million workers in Canada have no pension plan other than the CPP. At the same time, the annual contribution limit for the tax-free savings account would increase to $10,000, as has already been discussed, and this measure would have an estimated cost to federal revenues of $1.1 billion by 2019.

Even at the maximum annual contribution of $5,500, the TFSA is projected to cost the federal government up to $15 billion annually, and cost the provinces another $8 billion when the program is fully mature. Doubling would further increase this cost almost exclusively to the benefit of higher income earners. In contrast, expanding the CPP would benefit all workers, follow workers who change employers or who have multiple employers, and be simple for employers to administer.

In terms of supporting manufacturing, we recognize that as a result of globalization, unfavourable trade deals, a high dollar, and the most recent recession, manufacturing in Ontario and across Canada has experienced devastating losses over the past decade. In recognition of this reality, we have long supported renewing the accelerated capital cost allowance for investment in machinery and equipment. This measure was first introduced in 2007, renewed in 2011 and 2013, and would now be renewed until 2026. While we support this measure, we want to note that corporate tax cuts have failed to spur business investment. In the same vein, we feel that continuing this accelerated capital cost allowance would be insufficient to support a struggling manufacturing sector in Canada.

Coming out of the recession, business investments in manufacturing have been very slow to rebound, despite the continuation of the accelerated capital cost allowance. In October 2014, the monetary policy report released by the Bank of Canada suggested that this is in part because of a semi-permanent loss of capacity in several manufacturing export sectors. Low interest rates and low taxes have not been sufficient drivers of growth. Weak and uncertain demand have played a significant role in subdued investment. All signs point to the need for the federal government investment in infrastructure to spur growth and therefore boost business confidence and private investment.

A singular focus on tax cuts has significant drawbacks. We note that while the budget 2015 documentation mentions the importance of investment in skilled labour in the same sentence as it mentions investment in machinery, government action on this front has been noticeably absent.

Let me remind the committee of some of the recommendations the Canadian Labour Congress has made in the past that would make a difference to investment in skilled workers.

One, establish a national skills council that brings key stakeholders together to identify skills gaps and develop strategies, policies, and programs to address them.

Two, establish a mandatory national workplace training fund. Employers with a payroll of more than $1 million who fail to invest 1% of their payroll in training should pay the shortfall into a public fund that is used to finance work-related training initiatives.

Three, increase funding for the labour market agreements, the LMAs, with the provinces and territories to help vulnerable unemployed workers, including immigrants, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, women, older workers, younger workers, and less skilled individuals.

Four, mandate employers to hire and train apprentices. The federal budget should ensure that those projects receiving federal dollars through the new building Canada fund and the investment in affordable housing program mandate employers to hire and train apprentices.

This budget further erodes the fiscal capacity of the Canadian state and rejects the opportunity to take advantage of exceptionally low borrowing costs and invest in the current and future needs of working people in Canada.

Thank you.

[Ron Bonnett, President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Thank you, and thanks for the invitation to attend.

As mentioned, I'm the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and we represent about 200,000 farm families across the country.

I'd like to make a few comments on some of the provisions in the 2015 federal budget and Bill C-59.

The first concerns the decrease in the small business income tax rate from 11% to 9%, applying to the first $500,000 of income.

This measure will provide broad tax relief for Canadian producers, providing them an additional flexibility to manage risk, to reinvest in their operations, and to improve productivity. Any such relief directly contributes to Canadians' agricultural competitiveness in global markets.

As well, the extension of the tax deferral regime that applies to patronage dividends paid to members of agricultural cooperatives through eligible shares is welcomed. Agricultural cooperatives provide valuable support to small and medium-sized agricultural producers as a resilient business model that provides improved risk management capacity, improved market access, and a variety of other benefits to their members.

These businesses play an important role in the economies of rural communities across Canada, and such a tax deferral enhances cooperatives' capitalization capacity and frees up important investment funds that would otherwise be directed towards addressing members' associated tax liabilities.

As well, I would briefly like to comment on the provision for accelerated capital cost allowance for investments in machinery and equipment. While the benefits of such a measure do not directly relate to the majority of agriculture operations, a vibrant food processing industry is essential to the ongoing success of the Canadian agricultural industry.

I would like to dedicate the rest of my time to discussing the increase to the lifetime capital gains exemption and the important role that tax policy plays in what is soon to be a significant transfer of farm businesses to the next generation.

The continued success of Canadian agriculture as an economic driver for Canada requires a tax policy environment conducive to continued viability and competitiveness for Canadian farm businesses. One of the most pressing issues facing Canadian agriculture is the rising age of Canadian farmers. Over the next 10 to 15 years we expect at least 120,000 farms to transfer ownership, with total assets well over $50 billion. As such, CFA would like to express its support for the bill's immediate increase to the lifetime capital gains exemption for owners of farm and fishing businesses from approximately $813,000 to $1 million.

The additional exemption of nearly $200,000 in capital gains offers producers important tax relief, allowing them to maintain more of their capital for retirement and also providing additional flexibility to develop a succession plan that meets the needs of both parties.

There are other things that can be done to improve the issue of succession planning. Capital gains exemption is just one aspect of the tax policy environment that influences the succession process and operational arrangements involved.

We have several outstanding recommendations.

The first concerns barriers facing farms transferred to the next generation under joint sibling ownership. Subsection 55(2), often regarded as the most complex section of the Income Tax Act, adds significant barriers to splitting up a farm corporation that is jointly owned by two siblings. This is because section 55 considers siblings to be unrelated or at arm's length.

Joint sibling ownership will be a common result of many intergenerational transfers over the next decade. Parents can transfer to their children on a tax-deferred basis, but unexpected issues can arise following the transfer that even the most comprehensive succession plan cannot account for. If the siblings then need to split up the operation, it can no longer be done on a tax-deferred basis. CFA has recommended that the Income Tax Act deem siblings to be non-arm's length, specifically for farm corporations.

Second, section 84.1 of the Income Tax Act currently limits the access to the capital gains exemption when a transaction occurs between family members. In the sale of a company's shares to a non-related purchasing corporation, a holding company is generally used as the purchasing vehicle. This allows the purchaser to access the acquired company's income stream and allows the vendor to access their enhanced capital gain exemption on the sale.

However, when dealing with family, the benefits of this structure are effectively denied. Most family farms now operate as corporations, and as such the intergenerational family farm transfer rules are not facilitating the transfer.

We recommend that amendments be made to section 84.1 of the Income Tax Act so that it no longer contains those constraints.

This is a brief overview. We have provided the members with a full pre-budget submission, and it goes into more detail.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the committee for allowing me to speak to this bill and once again reiterate our support for the four amendments I previously touched on.

[Allister W. Young, Associate Professor, Taxation, Goodman School of Business, Brock University, As an Individual]

I am here today to address provisions of Bill C-59 dealing with changes to the tax-free savings account, specifically the proposed increase of the TFSA annual contribution limit from the current $5,500 to $10,000.

I speak against this very large increase of more than 80% on the basis that the existing TFSA, with its $5,500 limit, is already failing to serve its stated purpose. To almost double the limit will exacerbate the inequity that research has already identified.

I will refer you specifically to our article published in the Canadian Tax Journal entitled “Tax-Free Savings Accounts–A Cautionary Tale from the UK Experience”.

The purpose of that research project was to predict how Canadians would use the TFSA and specifically whether the government's promise would be borne out, i.e., that the introduction of the TFSA would benefit all Canadians at all income levels in all walks of life.

We used data from the British experience with their tax-free savings plan, the ISA, or individual savings account, a tax measure very similar to the Canadian TFSA. There was every reason to believe that the Canadian experience would be similar to the effects that the British savings plan had already shown, as follows:

One, as income rises, so does plan participation.

Two, the introduction of such a plan does little to break down the barriers to savings faced by low-income individuals.

Three, the plan take-up rate in terms of new savings by low-income individuals could be less than 5%.

Four, the proportion of accounts held by low-income individuals falls consistently over time, as the proportion held by high-income individuals continues to rise.

Five, these plans provide a significant opportunity for income splitting in single-income households.

Six, the typical account holder is a man, belongs to the highest-income cohort, and is approaching retirement.

[Michel D. Doiron, Assistant Deputy Minister, Service Delivery, Department of Veterans Affairs]

Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Chair, members, mesdames et messieurs.

As the chair said, my name is Michel Doiron and I am the assistant deputy minister for service delivery at Veterans Affairs. With me today is my colleague Bernard Butler, the acting assistant deputy minister of policy, communications, and commemoration.

I wish to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on an issue of importance and great interest to veterans and their families, and that is those elements of the government's response to your committee's report of June 2014, titled “The New Veterans Charter: Moving Forward”, that are contained in economic action plan 2015, or Bill C-59. The legislation, if passed, will amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, commonly known as the new Veterans Charter, to address a number of the concerns and gaps that have been identified.

There are essentially five legislative amendments/provisions contained within the bill.

The first provision introduces a purpose clause “to recognize and fulfil the obligation of the people and Government of Canada to show just and due appreciation to members and veterans for their service to Canada” and further provides that the “Act shall be liberally interpreted so that the recognized obligation may be fulfilled”.

The second significant provision enhances Veterans Affairs Canada's ability to support transition to civilian life. It authorizes Veterans Affairs Canada to provide information and guidance to Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans on the benefits and services that may be available to them in order to help them transition and to make decisions on applications for benefits and services prior to release.

There are three additional amendments that effectively create new benefits for veterans. These new benefits will strengthen the government's support provided to seriously disabled veterans and their families through the new Veterans Charter.

The first benefit, known as the retirement income security benefit, RISB, would provide moderately to severely disabled veterans—those who need it most—with continued assistance in the form of a monthly income support payment beginning at the age of 65.

The second benefit, the family caregiver relief benefit, would provide eligible veterans with a tax-free annual grant of $7,238 so that their informal caregivers, often their spouses or other devoted family members, will have flexibility or relief when they need it while also ensuring that veterans' care needs are met.

The third benefit, the critical injury benefit, or CIB, would provide a $70,000 tax-free award to support the most severely injured and ill Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans.

These new benefits will complement the existing suite of services and benefits available through the new Veterans Charter and add depth to the supports available both to those injured in service to their country and to their families from the Government of Canada.

As announced in the budget, additional staff will also address delays in service delivery, especially for the most seriously disabled and their families. We will hire more than 100 permanent case managers for improved one-on-one services. More than 100 new disability adjudication staff, temporary and permanent, will improve the processing time for veterans who submit an application for a disability benefit application. This is part of the department's commitment to service excellence.

Thank you for listening.

I will now open the floor, Mr. Chair, to any questions the committee may have for Bernard or for me.

[John Davies, Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm happy to provide a brief overview of the measures being proposed in Bill C-59, specifically with regard to the prevention of terrorist travel act in tandem with the proposed changes to the Canadian passport order. The proposed amendments underline the government's continuing commitment to strengthen national security and protect Canadians at home and abroad, as they are intended to address the evolving global threat environment.

To begin, let me provide you with a brief overview of the changes to the Canadian Passport Order announced on May 7 related to national security.

First, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness will have the authority to cancel a passport when there is reasonable grounds to suspect it will prevent the commission of a terrorism offence, or for national security purposes. After a passport is cancelled, law enforcement and border control partners are notified and the passport can no longer be used for travel. However, cancellation is a temporary measure used until investigation is completed. If at the conclusion of an investigation there are insufficient grounds to revoke the passport, the passport will be reissued to the individual.

In some circumstances the passport may be cancelled by the minister without prior notice to the individual. In these instances the individual will be notified as soon as possible after the cancellation.

The order also provides an administration reconsideration mechanism to challenge passport cancellation decisions. Once a person has been advised of a cancellation, they are given 30 days to respond and provide information that will be taken into account by the minister when reconsidering the decision to cancel. The individual can appeal the cancellation before the Federal Court of Canada within 30 days of the date on which they receive the notice of the reconsideration decision. Provisions to appeal cancellation are provided for in proposed section 4 of the prevention of terrorist travel act.

Second, the minister can also refuse or revoke a passport when there are reasonable grounds to believe it will prevent the commission of a terrorism offence, or for national security purposes.

Finally, the order also provides the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness the authority to refuse passport services for up to 10 years, during which an individual may not apply for a passport. During a period of refusal of passport services, a person may be required to travel on an urgent, compelling, or compassionate basis. There is an existing mechanism administered by Passport Canada to allow them to travel under these circumstances.

In these situations, an individual may submit an application for a temporary passport for travel and provide the documents necessary to support the justification.

Supporting these changes to the Canadian Passport Order are the legislative measures before you today.

These measures allow individuals to challenge passport decisions, protect information used in those proceedings, and set out the rules for both an appeal of the cancellation or a judicial review of the refusal or revocation.

In national security cases sensitive information is often required to support the cancellation or revocation of passports. During judicial proceedings protecting that sensitive information from disclosure is important to prevent adverse impacts on national security, or for the safety of the person. The government must balance the requirement to protect sensitive information with the ability to successfully uphold passport decisions taken on national security or terrorism grounds.

These proposed amendments will enable a Federal Court judge to protect sensitive information when presiding over proceedings for passport cancellation, revocation, or refusal of services for national security or terrorism purposes. The judge will be required to consider sensitive information in making the decision and to protect that information from disclosure if, in the judge's opinion, the disclosure could be injurious to national security or endanger the safety of any person. While some sensitive information may be withheld, the individual would still receive a summary of the information that was used to make the decision.

In addition, in the context of appeals and judicial review of national security passport decisions in the Federal Court, an individual may introduce information to respond to the government's case.

Overall, this approach should streamline the process and result in more timely decisions, which are in the interest of all parties.

The procedures have been designed to provide the individual with an opportunity to present their case and to be reasonably informed of the government's case. These measures are also consistent with the ability of the courts to review other ministerial decisions, such as the listing of terrorist entities and the listing of persons provided in Bill C-51 under the secure air travel act.

These safeguards strike a good balance between the right to protect Canadians against the threat of terrorism and the right of affected individuals to fair treatment.

Thank you. I am happy to take any questions the committee might have on the measures being proposed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order. This is meeting number 82 of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Our orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of May 25, we are studying Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures. This is our first session.

We have with us here this morning a number of individuals to present. I want to welcome all of you and to thank you for appearing here this morning.

We have Professor Maureen Donnelly from Brock University.

We also have Professor Allister Young, from Brock University as well, I understand.

We have from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Mr. Ron Bonnett, president.

From the Canadian Labour Congress, we have their senior economist, Ms. Angella MacEwen.

From the Canadian Manufacturing Council, we have the vice-president, Mr. David Podruzny.

From Imagine Canada, we have the president and CEO, Mr. Bruce MacDonald.

Welcome to everyone.

From the Library of Parliament, we have Monsieur Jean-Denis Fréchette.

Welcome once again, Mr. Fréchette.

You will each have five minutes for your opening statements, and then we'll have questions from members.

We'll begin with Ms. Donnelly, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Good morning. Welcome to the 50th meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

This morning, we are beginning our study of division 17 of Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures.

To have a compelling start to this study, we will have the pleasure of hearing from two respected officials from the Department of Veterans Affairs during the first hour of this meeting: Michel Doiron, assistant deputy minister, service delivery, and Bernard Butler, associate assistant deputy minister, policy, communications and commemoration.

This half of our meeting will end at 9:45 a.m., at which point, we'll take a quick break. Then we will hear from Guy Parent, Veterans Ombudsman, joined by Sharon Squire, Deputy Ombudsman, Executive Director of Operations; as well as from Brian Forbes, Chairman of the National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada.

Each stakeholder will make a seven-minute presentation. Normally it's 10 minutes, but we have more witnesses now, so we're going to squeeze you in. Members will then have an opportunity to ask witnesses questions.

Mr. Doiron, you may go ahead.

Economic Action Plan 2015, Act No. 1

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at second reading of Bill C-59.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from May 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Suzanne Legault]

We referred the matter to the Attorney General of Canada, as per the act. Then, I learned through the papers that the file had been sent to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada and to the OPP for investigation. I wasn't aware of that. I learned about it from the papers and have no idea whether it's true or not.

I think the next steps will involve the courts. If Bill C-59 is passed, the police investigation that has begun will not continue because it will have been based on information that will have been retroactively eliminated. The next step will be the study of the bill by parliamentary committee. It will become Parliament's responsibility.

On our end, we plan to use every available recourse to safeguard the requester's rights.

[Suzanne Legault]

I think the first and most fundamental change Bill C-59 makes is to retroactively eliminate the right of requesters to access information under the act. In fact, it has the effect of retroactively eliminating the office's entire investigation, all of the evidence gathered, and requesters' right to appeal to the Federal Court. It also retroactively eliminates all potential liability, be it administrative, civil or criminal.

The biggest change probably isn't how it will affect the mandate of the Office of the Information Commissioner but, rather, how it will affect Canadians' right to access information and their right to hold their government accountable for its actions. That's the main consequence of Bill C-59.

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

Thank you.

At the end of the previous fiscal year, you appeared before the committee to request additional funding, which you were denied. And now we see in Bill C-59 what you consider to be a change in your authority. The bill actually seeks to apply the change retroactively.

Do you see that as a threat to your mandate and responsibilities as commissioner?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Ms. Legault.

It ties into my colleagues' questions about Bill C-59 and the investigation into the gun registry records. In fact, I proposed a motion to study your report in the hope that we will have the opportunity to discuss the matter in greater detail.

Is it accurate to say that the office handling access to information requests should operate at arm's length from the Minister of Justice's office?

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on Bill C-59, our budget implementation act for economic action plan, 2015.

The good news is that the federal government has balanced its budget and now we are helping families to balance theirs. We are doing so by introducing the family tax cut, the enhanced universal child care benefit enhancements for children under 6, and a new universal child care benefit for those between 6 and 17 years. That would help families balance their budget and get ahead.

There are a number of things I like about the budget implementation bill before us today and in the short amount of time I have, I am going to try to lay them out as quickly as I possibly can and explain why I am supporting this particular measure.

Farm succession is an important issue, drawing in the younger generation of farmers in Essex county. We do about $1 billion-plus in agricultural GDP each and every year. Extending the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1 million for owners of farm businesses, which is contained in this act, would go a long way in succession planning and drawing in our young farmers.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister was in Windsor—Essex, talking about manufacturing. There is a lot to say in Bill C-59. We would be extending the accelerated capital cost allowance out to 10 years. That would give a lot of predictability. I encourage the opposition members, who said they supported that measure, to actually stand in their place to vote for it now.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House today on Bill C-59, the budget implementation bill.

This bill contains a number of measures that were introduced in our recent economic action plan 2015. That budget contained measures we campaigned on. We all campaigned in 2011 as Conservatives on certain things in that platform. We said we would balance the budget by 2015-16, and we have delivered on that promise with this budget.

We campaigned that once the budget was balanced and we were back into a surplus position, we would bring in a family tax cut that would benefit families by allowing them to reallocate some of their income, from one family member to another, to more fairly tax at a household rate. That would allow families to reduce their tax burden and be taxed like similar income families. That is what we have done in this budget.

We campaigned on expanding the tax-free savings account, which we introduced and the opposition parties opposed. We said we would expand that once we were back into a surplus position, and that is what we have done here in this budget.

We made commitments to Canadians during that campaign, and we are delivering on them with this budget.

This budget has many features in it that will benefit not only all Canadians but specifically the people of Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon. There is support for families, support for seniors, support for our veterans, support for farmers, and support for small businesses.

We propose to reduce the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019, putting an estimated $2.7 billion back into the pockets of job-creating small businesses and their owners between now and 2019-20.

We know that the very first thing the Liberal leader did when he walked outside the room, while the budget was still being read, was say that he would take that away. He said he would take away the tax reduction for small businesses, which are responsible for the vast majority of job creation in Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon and indeed for 50% of jobs right across the country. We believe they deserve to be supported. The Liberal Party would take that benefit away.

We said that we would increase the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1 million for owners of farm and fishing businesses. In my riding, in the Fraser Valley, we have a large number of farms. I believe it is 400 farms. Those people work hard day and night, seven days a week, to not only provide for their families and employees but to provide for all Canadians the food we eat. They help feed the cities, as they like to say. We believe that when the time comes for them to take their well-deserved retirement and sell that business to a family member, they should be able to keep more of the money they have earned so that they can enjoy that retirement.

As I said before, we have increased the tax-free savings account annual contribution limit to $10,000, effective in 2015 and for subsequent years. Again, the opposition has said they would take that away.

I spoke to a constituent who called me right after the budget was tabled. He wondered if that provision, that extended TFSA, was already available. I was pleased to tell him that it was. He is not a wealthy Canadian. I know that the Leader of the Opposition likes to denigrate people who save money for their own retirement. He has said that they are just putting money aside for their second BMW. What an insult to the people of Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon and right across this country.

This constituent I talked to drives a 10-year-old minivan. He lives in a modest home with his wife, and they have one car. They are not wealthy Canadians, but they are setting aside money for their own retirement. They believe, like I do, that the government should not tax them once when they earn and tax them again when they go to take that out of a financial instrument. They are quite happy with the change to the TFSA.

I want to focus, as well, on our family tax cut. I want to give a couple of examples. We heard it again today from the opposition. They talk about how the family tax cut benefits the well-off and the well-connected, just the rich. What an insult, again, to the people of Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon. I will tell the House about the people this is benefiting in my riding.

One of my constituents is a high school teacher. He works hard. His wife is a graphic designer who works from home, part time now because they have just welcomed twin boys to their family. They now have four children under the age of seven. He works outside of the home; his wife stays home, works part time, and works full time as a mother to their four kids. Under the family tax cut, they will receive the maximum $2,000 credit. They will also receive $6,480 per year in the universal child care benefit, something the Liberal Party and the NDP would take away from them.

Again, these are people who live in a modest home in the old part of Chilliwack. These are not people living in a mansion and driving two BMWs, as the NDP likes to say. They drive a 10-year-old minivan and are looking after their family. However, the NDP and the Liberals would take away their benefits because they think they are a wealthy, well-connected rich family.

Another example is a constituent who is an electrician. In order to make things better for his family, he has decided to leave them behind three weeks at a time to go and work in the oil patch up in Fort McMurray. His wife, who used to be a health care technician, was forced to leave the workforce because of a disability. She receives CPP disability and stays home to provide home school to their two children, who are also disabled. Because of their disability and their challenges, they are unable to operate in a traditional school environment. This family too will get the full $2,000 family tax cut.

However, the NDP and Liberals would say that an electrician with a wife on CPP disability are rich, well-connected, and wealthy. They would say they do not deserve it and it is not fair if they get it. What nonsense. They work hard to put food on the table for their families as high school teachers and electricians. Again, these families would receive the $2,000 credit and $1,440 a year to help with their child care costs, which is something the Liberals and NDP would take away.

There is even more.

There are a number of seniors in my riding. People come to Chilliwack and the Fraser Canyon to retire because we have a great community and the warmest overall temperature in Canada. We do not get the cold winters that people suffer through here in Ottawa. We get lovely summers as well. People like to retire in Chilliwack.

In this budget we have introduced a reduction in the minimum withdrawal factors for registered retirement income funds to permit seniors to preserve more of their retirement savings so as to better support their retirement income needs. We have also brought in supports for seniors and people with disabilities to allow them to stay in their own homes. We would give them a tax credit to allow them to renovate and make their homes safer and more accessible as they age or need help to deal with a disability. We want them to be able to live independently and safely in their own homes for as long as possible, and that is what this budget, this BIA, would do.

We are also extending the employment insurance compassionate care benefit from six weeks to six months to better support Canadians caring for gravely ill and dying family members. All of us have experienced that terrible loss of a family member who may have fallen suddenly ill and the devastating impact that has, not only on the individual but on those who provide care and who may have relied on that individual for their well-being and livelihood. It is such a shock. Allowing six months to be with someone who is ill and time for grieving and healing afterwards, because the pain and suffering do not end when a person passes away, is an important new aspect of this act.

Once again, this budget implementation act would implement measures from economic action plan 2015. We campaigned on it and we have kept our commitment to Canadians. We are reducing taxes for families, and as I have shown in both of my examples, these are average, everyday Canadians who are working for their own families. These are not people who are living high on the hog. They are people we all see in our communities. Every single family with children under the age of 18 will benefit because of this bill and because of this budget, and that is why I am so proud to support it.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to denounce this government's undemocratic ways.

We have before us a budget implementation bill that is over 160 pages long, contains over 270 provisions and amends dozens of laws. I find it appalling that the government has introduced such a huge bill that includes legislation that has nothing to do with the budget. What is the prevention of terrorist travel act doing in a budget implementation bill?

I think it is worth pointing out that the current Prime Minister was the first to condemn this kind of practice when the Liberals were in power. At the time, he was shocked that a government could enact so many laws in one fell swoop. He has become very good at something he once denounced.

The number of pages in this omnibus bill is not the only problem. Another frightening thing is that the government is refusing to debate it. It imposed a gag order, as it does every time one of its bills contains contentious provisions. We cannot properly represent our constituents, the people who elected us, if we do not have the time to thoroughly examine the proposed provisions.

We are talking about the budget implementation bill. We are talking about Canada's future, and it is not right for a government to have such contempt for the people or toy with its institutions. This government is making a mockery of democracy and thumbing its nose at Canadians.

I will now talk about the content of the bill. Bill C-59 is a bill that we cannot support.

Let us start with income splitting. This is the perfect example of how out of touch the Conservatives are, since, as we know, only families with two incomes in two different tax brackets will benefit from this measure.

I would like to remind everyone of the impact that income splitting has on women. I have the good fortune of sitting on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, and I would like to share some of what we heard from witnesses. According to them, single women and single-parent families will not benefit at all from income splitting.

Similarly, the elimination of the child tax credit will take away about $2 billion from parents, many of whom are single parents. All of the family-related tax transfers actually deter the very women the government claims to care about.

Fewer women will be participating in the workforce as a result of this measure. According to Kathleen Lahey of the faculty of law at Queen's University, the advantages of income splitting will actually encourage young women and female college graduates to pay even less attention to their salary, since, after they talk to their peers, spouse or partner, they will know that it may be more worthwhile for the family to replace paid work with unpaid work.

While the whole country is trying to find better jobs for women, the government is using tax breaks to encourage them not to work. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whom the Conservatives love to quote, has been critical of income splitting.

He estimates that the average benefit will go to families whose income exceeds $180,000, which is 15% of families. He also said that income splitting will cost taxpayers $2.5 billion in 2015. The Conservatives are ignoring the 85% of Canadian families who will not benefit from this measure. Why? Because they have their sights set on the election coming up in a few months and they are more interested in helping out those they think will vote for them. That group of people never seems to include families that are working very hard and having trouble making ends meet. The fact is that these families are struggling with income stagnation and the rising cost of living, which is prompting them to take on massive debt.

There are now 250,000 fewer jobs in Canada than there were before the recession, and 160,000 fewer jobs for youth. If one believed all the ads the government has bought with taxpayer money—almost $750 million worth—one would think everything was hunky-dory. However, Canadians know different because they are still carrying the highest debt loads in Canadian history.

In an atrocious economic environment, one would think job one from the government of the day would be to create jobs, to get people back to work, to diversify the economy, and to invest in the economy in ways that would actually produce the jobs that we have been missing since the last global recession.

Instead, we see the true priorities of the Conservatives when it comes to jobs, and that is their own jobs. They are hoping to buy back re-election just one more time. That is why they raised the ceiling for the TFSA, which will benefit only 20% of the wealthiest Canadians and will not increase Canadians' savings; however, it will certainly cost our economy billions of dollars.

Instead of doing things that are not going to stimulate our economy, the government could have invested in our health care system. Investing in health is an investment in Canada's economic future. For example, providing care to someone over 65 costs five times more than providing care to someone between 15 and 65. This Conservative government is turning a deaf ear and abandoning our seniors, the middle class and the least fortunate, who will not be able to access adequate health care. They prefer to spend money on catering to the needs of the highest earners.

Canadians deserve a government that works for all Canadians, not just for its supporters. They deserve a budget that works for them and contains sound economic measures, not electoral goodies.

I will close by emphasizing that this is the 96th time the government is imposing time allocation in this parliament. In Canada, we have never had a government that abused time allocation and closure as much as this one has. This is a testament to the arrogance and incompetence of this government, which has introduced a number of bills in the House of Commons that have been rejected by the courts. They were rejected because the government does not really do its due diligence to verify its bills. Canadians are fed up with this government that plays fast and loose with its institutions and they will prove it in October.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act No. 1

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for a comprehensive speech.

The interesting thing is that this is what veterans want and need, and everyone on the veterans affairs committee, of which I was a member, agreed unanimously that these are good things. We have added things even beyond those.

Given the games that are being played, and there are going to be a lot of accusations in all directions, how important is it, because the time is short, to not give the opposition an opportunity to frustrate getting these measures passed? That is why we put them in Bill C-59 and that is why we are also debating those elements.

The opposition members will have a chance to vote on it at committee. They will have a chance to show that support. How important is it to roll it all into Bill C-59 so that we can make sure that the aim of getting these benefits there for veterans is not frustrated by game playing?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary said, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore made two attempts to send Bill C-58, which is about veterans, directly to committee after second reading in the House. Both times, the Conservatives refused to do it.

It is clear that this is a political game the Conservatives are playing because Bill C-59, the budget implementation bill, which we are discussing now, would not be disrupted if we were to agree to the motion moved by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore simply because the provisions in Bill C-59 could be withdrawn in committee if they became redundant.

Knowing that, can the parliamentary secretary explain why the Conservatives are against our proposal to send Bill C-58 to committee and pass it quickly? Why are they using these stalling tactics?

The House resumed from May 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to have the opportunity to comment on another great budget from a strong, stable, majority Conservative government.

The budget has been described in my community as centrist, cautious, keeping old promises as well as making new ones, and at times surprisingly compassionate.

The first budget of Minister of Finance, the first balanced one since the great recession of 2008, provides substantial benefits to many Canadians. The budget helps seniors by giving them more flexibility and withdrawals from retirement income funds, and a new tax credit to make homes more accessible. Seniors will also benefit from the new $10,000 contribution limit for a tax-free savings account, as well as new help for people caring for seriously ill relatives.

Families with children will receive improvements for the universal child care benefit and the child care expense deduction, in addition to the previously announced family tax cut. There is help for post-secondary students seeking loans through the Canada student loans program.

To stimulate the economy, the budget offers tax breaks for small business, investment incentives to manufacturers and new infrastructure spending. There will also be more money spent on security measures, both in Canada and abroad.

Despite losing $6 billion in anticipated revenue due to plunging oil prices, the government squeezed out a small surplus in this budget. Now the question is how can we boost the economy? I can tell the House, further deficits are not the answer. No one knows how long such deficits would have to continue, meanwhile increasing debt charges continue to drain economic resources.

The Conservative government promised to balance the budget, and it did. We promised to save money for taxpayers, and we have. We said that we would improve the quality of the lives of people, and we did. We said that we would protect Canadians from security threats and defend democratic values against totalitarian states and terrorist groups, and that is exactly what we are doing. Promises made; promises kept.

Economic action plan 2015 emphasizes supporting Canada's families through tax relief and benefits. Here are some important measures: increasing the tax-free savings account contribution limit to $10,000; introducing the family tax cut to allow a higher income spouse to transfer taxable income to his spouse in a lower tax bracket; tax relief of up to $2,000 per family for couples with children under the age of 18; increasing and expanding the universal child care benefit to provide every family in Canada with $2,000 per year per child under the age of six, and $720 per year per child between the ages of 6 and 17; increasing the child care expense deduction limit by $1,000; doubling the child fitness tax credit to $1,000 and making it refundable; renewing the mandate of the Canadian Mental Health Commission for another 10 years to help tackle mental health issues that affect some Canadian families; and enhancing support for child advocacy centres across Canada to deliver community based programs helping children and families recover from victimization.

Over 11 million Canadians are currently earning tax-free income in their tax-free savings accounts, saving for a down payment on a home, for their kids education or for their retirement. In 2011, the Prime Minister promised to double the contribution limit of the tax-free savings account once the budget was balanced, another promise kept.

The opposition threatens to reverse this increase, claiming it only benefits the rich. However, the Department of Finance has shown that the vast majority of maximum contributors are low to middle-income earners, and many are seniors. It is little wonder that the Canadian Association of Retired Persons strongly endorses the increases to the TSFA limit.

Here are some interesting statistics that contradict the assertion that such measures only benefit the very wealthy. Almost 60% of TSFA maximisers make less than $60,000 per annum. Just under half of TSFA maximisers, 46% of them are seniors. Overall, 80% of the 11 million Canadians who hold tax-free savings accounts have incomes of less than $80,000, and 50% have incomes less than $42,000. All of them will benefit from an increase in the limit.

These measures do not involve taking money from the government, as some oppositions members claim. These measures simply ensure that hard-working families across the country get to keep more of their own money.

The family tax cut will permit a higher-earning spouse to transfer taxable income to a lower tax bracket spouse. Tax relief is capped at $2,000 for couples with children under 18.

Now the opposition asserts that income splitting only benefits 15% of Canadian families, but two things are misleading about that assertion.

First, 15% of Canadian families represent approximately two million households. Any single tax measure that provides relief to two million households is extremely far-reaching. The NDP's proposed child care measure by contrast would benefit only half of this number of Canadians, and that does not even take into account the grandparents who will see the benefit of this in their children's families.

Beyond even that, the Parliamentary Budget Officer found that middle and middle-high income households would benefit most from income splitting. Most of the tax relief would be provided to middle-income families. More than one million families, representing 83% of those earning between $60,000 and $120,000, would qualify for the family tax cut.

Instead of calculating income on an individual basis, the family tax cut would provide moderate relief based on household income, widely accepted as the fairest measure of any family's resources. This is a question of fairness. Families with the same income should be taxed at the same rate. The current system forces some families, which are exactly equal to others, to pay significantly more in taxes, and that is simply unfair. The family tax cut would solve this problem.

Another important facet of economic action plan 2015 is its emphasis on manufacturing as a key engine for the Canadian economy, and this is good news for my residents of Kitchener Centre and Waterloo region. In this budget, the government has delivered an incentive for manufacturers, which provides them with an accelerated capital cost allowance to spur continued investment in required equipment. This measure alone is expected to reduce federal taxes for manufacturers in Ontario by $473 million over the period of 2016 to 2020.

The government's new economic action plan would create an automotive supplier innovation program to deliver $100 million worth of support over five years for automotive part suppliers. The government will also develop a national aerospace supplier development initiative, a made-in-Canada solution, working with industry and government stakeholders, to aid aerospace firms.

Manufacturing is also be assisted by the most ambitious pro-export plan in our country's history so Canadian businesses can pursue global opportunities. Since 2006, the Conservative government has concluded free trade agreements with 38 countries, compared to just five before taking office. Canadian exporters will soon have preferential access to more than half the global marketplace. Opening up new markets is just one of the many ways this government is fostering growth and job creation for Canadians.

As members can see, economic action plan 2015 builds on Conservative government strategies that have helped the Canadian economy emerge stronger and more quickly than any other G7 nation from the worst global recession in over 80 years. That is why every member of the House should support Bill C-59.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak about some of the key provisions of the economic action plan, 2015, and to support its implementation with Bill C-59.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

On April 21, our Minister of Finance delivered a balanced budget that shows strong support for seniors and families, encourages growth, supports our business and manufacturing sectors, and focuses on the security and prosperity of our great nation. Today I would like to speak to those elements that stand out for me and especially to the constituents of Kitchener—Conestoga, whom I am so humbled and honoured to represent.

As a long-time supporter of and collaborator with the Mental Health Commission of Canada, I was beyond proud to see economic action plan 2015 announce a renewal of the Mental Health Commission's mandate, starting in 2017-18, so that the commission can continue its important work of promoting mental health in Canada and fostering change in the delivery of mental health services, giving specific attention to suicide prevention.

The Mental Health Commission has achieved a number of important milestones since its creation in 2007, including creating a national mental health strategy, developing a national anti-stigma initiative to help reduce discrimination faced by Canadians living with mental illness, and establishing a knowledge exchange centre as a source of information for governments, stakeholders, and the public.

I am proud to have collaborated with the Mental Health Commission of Canada on numerous occasions, and I am hopeful for what the future holds for mental health initiatives and suicide prevention with this 10-year extension. I know that it is eager to continue its work across the country and to implement new programs to help youth, veterans, and all Canadians.

The Waterloo Region is home to organizations such as the Waterloo Region Suicide Prevention Council, which works tirelessly with partnering organizations, professionals, and the community to help those struggling with mental health issues.

I have said in the past that the conversation about mental health is just as important as the legislation, and I know that local groups in my riding would benefit from the ability to continue their work on mental health issues and suicide prevention efforts.

All of these efforts are very effective in getting important conversations out in the open, thereby reducing stigma and bringing hope. Hope is what this is about. I have said on many occasions that hope is the oxygen of the human spirit. Without it, the spirit dies. While the budget implementation act is about numbers, dollars, and cents, at its core it is a message of hope for Canadians.

As the Mental Health Commission of Canada stated, “This is wonderful news for the mental health community.... Together, we have advocated for change. And together, we are succeeding”.

When we put a strong emphasis on mental health as a key priority for our country, we all succeed.

I was honoured to be co-founder of the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care and to have served as its co-chair since 2010. We worked across party lines to promote awareness of deficiencies in palliative and compassionate care in Canada. In 2011, we released a landmark report entitled “Not to be Forgotten”, reporting on the state of palliative care and suicide prevention, which was endorsed by key organizations, including the Canadian Medical Association, among many others.

One of the recommendations arising from our report was to expand the provisions of the employment insurance-based compassionate care benefit to 26 weeks and to ensure its flexibility to allow partial weeks to be covered, allowing caregiver leave for episodic care.

Through the employment insurance program, compassionate care benefits provide financial assistance to people who have to be away from work temporarily to care for a family member who is gravely ill. Canadians should not have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for their families.

I have always advocated for better availability of care for our society's most vulnerable. The new extension of the compassionate care benefit under EI from six weeks to six months, allowing those taking leave to care for their families, will make a significant difference in the lives of many families who want to care for their loved ones in times of severe health challenges.

I was thrilled to see that the parliamentary committee's palliative and compassionate care report was actually quoted in the budget along with this exciting initiative. As the report states:

Family and friends have been described as the invisible backbone of the Canadian healthcare system.

I am proud of our government's achievements in supporting families.

Speaking of families, there has been tremendous support in my own riding and across the country for the new credits and tax cuts for families. Let me list just a few of them: the doubling of the children's fitness tax credit to $1,000; the family tax cut, saving couples with children up to $2,000 through income splitting; an enhanced universal child care benefit, providing up to $1,920 per year for each child under six and up to $720 per year for each child between the ages of six and 17; and, finally, a $1,000 increase in the maximum claim amount for the child care expenses deduction. These measures would support Canadian families and put money back into the pockets of all families with children.

There is even more good news in the budget to help families and communities prosper. I am particularly pleased with the new initiatives to help seniors and persons with disabilities.

As a result of actions taken to date by the government, seniors and pensioners are receiving about $3 billion in additional annual targeted tax relief. We have doubled the $2,000 maximum amount of income eligible for the pension income credit. We have introduced pension income splitting, which the opposition parties say they would take away. Actually, 2.2 million Canadians take advantage of pension income splitting. I have heard from dozens of pensioners, seniors in my riding, who have told me what a big difference this makes for them.

This budget also supports seniors by reducing the minimum withdrawal factors for registered retirement income funds, RRIFs. This measure, in conjunction with the increase in the TFSA limit to $10,000, would support the retirement income needs of seniors by providing them with increased flexibility to manage their own savings in a tax-efficient manner.

I am also proud of the new home accessibility tax credit to help seniors and persons with disabilities who may face special challenges related to gaining access to their own homes or being mobile or functional within their own homes. Making improvements in their homes can be costly, which is why this new permanent tax credit would apply on up to $10,000 of eligible home renovation expenses per year, providing up to $1,500 in tax relief. These improvements would help ensure that seniors and persons with disabilities could live healthy, independent lives in the comfort of their own homes.

Allowing families to make arrangements to care for their family members through EI compassionate care benefits, helping seniors to have more flexibility with their retirement funds, and introducing new tax credits to help with mobility and accessibility are all concrete efforts to help all Canadian seniors.

As Canada's population ages, age-related cognitive impairment and chronic conditions are sadly becoming more prevalent. The burden on families is vast and continues to grow. Research on aging and brain health issues, such as dementia, can lead to better diagnoses and more effective treatments, which will improve Canadians' quality of life. That is why I am hopeful that the establishment of the Canadian centre for aging and brain health innovation will support new research and the development of products and services to support brain health and healthy aging. This investment would build on the government's strong record of investment in research and support for Canadians suffering from dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases.

Since 2006, our government has cut taxes 180 times, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in 50 years. Bill C-59 would continue our record of reducing taxes with measures such as reducing the small business tax rate from 11% to 9% by 2019, saving Canadian small businesses billions of dollars, and increasing the tax-free savings account annual contribution limit to help make it easier for all Canadians to save for their futures.

While the benefits to all Canadians included in this budget are important, it is crucial to remember that as promised, this is a balanced budget. Canadians understand the importance of living within their means, and they expect their governments to do the same. Balanced budgets keep taxes low and also ensure that government services like health care, education, and money for bridges, roads, clean water, and sewage treatments are sustained over the long haul for Canadians.

I am proud of this balanced budget and the benefits it would bring to Canadians, especially families, seniors and, finally, the most vulnerable among us.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak for a few moments on Bill C-59. Let me indicate that I will be sharing my time with the wonderful, hard-working member of Parliament for Beauport—Limoilou. I am pleased to have that opportunity.

Bill C-59 is a bill that I cannot accept. I will be opposing Bill C-59 for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it will implement the unfair tax scheme that the government introduced in its budget to transfer money to the wealthiest 15% of Canadians in the country. I refer, of course, to income splitting and increasing the TFSA.

A number of my colleagues have been talking about these issues in some detail. Since we only have ten minutes, I want to talk a little bit today about a couple of issues that I found particularly noteworthy and that would have an impact on people in my constituency. I will set it up as the good, the bad, and the missing. I will proceed to explain why.

Let me first of all say that the practice of omnibus bills that was introduced by the Liberals has really been put on steroids by the Conservatives. This bill is over 150 pages long. It deals with more than 270 clauses. It would amend dozens of acts, many of which are not within 100 miles of the budget. This kind of bill undermines the ability of MPs to do what it is that we were sent here to do, which is to scrutinize legislation.

Let me talk for a moment about something that I think is good in this bill. A couple of days ago it was called Bill C-58.

The government put Bill C-58, dealing with veterans, directly into this bill, and I will speak to that in a second. I supported Bill C-58, as it was known, because it would have improved the transition process for Canadian Forces members and veterans moving into civilian life. It would have established the retirement income security benefit to provide eligible veterans and survivors with a continued financial benefit after the age of 65 years. It would have established 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 were service-related, regardless of whether they result in permanent disability. It would have established 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.

I mention this in particular because my colleague and neighbouring MP, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, has been fighting tirelessly on behalf of veterans and spoke the other day in support of these changes for veterans. The Minister of Veterans Affairs actually accused that member of trying to hold up these changes and delay the implementation of Bill C-58. That is why he stuck it into the middle of this omnibus bill.

What is interesting, though, as has been explained by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, is that if the Conservatives had left Bill C-58 as a stand-alone piece of legislation, it would have been in committee today. It would have been dealt with, it would have been reported back by the end of this month, and it would have been ready to be put into law by the end of May or the early part of June.

However, as a result of sticking it into this omnibus bill, it is going to be at least the end of June before this legislation will be completed. In other words, belying his words, the minister is himself intentionally delaying these provisions, and that is something I am completely opposed to. I must say I expected better from the minister than misrepresenting the position of my colleague, an articulate and hard-working advocate on behalf of veterans.

I also want to commend the government for agreeing with a position that the New Democratic Party has taken for many years, something proposed in its platform of 2011, which was to extend the compassionate care benefits for Canadians caring for loved ones. In our 2011 budget proposal, New Democrats talked about moving that out to six months. It is extremely important.

That was in the NDP platform in 2011, before the government introduced changes that denied eligibility to Canadians and placed constraints on which Canadians would be eligible for this benefit. While New Democrats agree with extending it, we face the same problem that exists with the EI benefit program in its entirety, and that is access.

Let me refer to a couple of points that were made by a representative from the Canadian Alliance of United Seniors on this particular issue. He stated:

Extending this program is a good idea, but there still are some major problems with this initiative. The first problem is the fact that the measure can be used only for caring for a terminally ill person dying within six months. This is not good enough as many persons, who are very ill, are not diagnosed as terminally ill in this short time frame, but could still use important care. As well, many persons who are the potential caregivers are not working or are self-employed, and thus will not have access to any funds through this program. So while a good improvement, this program needs more work, because as the population ages....

While there may be a slight increase in costs if we were to deal with the access issues, it is certainly a much more effective way of providing care than the options.

I also want to say that I have talked to constituents who have made representations to me on behalf of ALS Canada and would like to be included in this benefit through a change in the wording to include those who are in “significant need of caregiving because of terminal illness”. It is too bad that was not part of this change.

Among the things that were particularly noteworthy on the negative side is what the government has done with respect to public sector sick leave. The government is overriding its own recently redrafted Public Service Labour Relations Act and allowing Treasury Board to arbitrarily set sick leave and disability plans for employees in the federal public service. This is an affront to the ongoing collective bargaining process. It is completely wrong and it is utterly disrespectful to the whole process of collective bargaining.

I have already spoken about my concern with the government raiding the EI fund once again, just as the Liberals did, to the benefit of the wealthy few. I am also disappointed that the government did not come up with a plan for providing affordable daycare spaces, as New Democrats proposed, at $15 a day. The bill would implement the enhanced universal child care benefit. We have committed to keeping it, but we also think that affordable quality daycare spaces are necessary.

Some of the things my constituents would like to see include: develop a comprehensive strategy to deal with persistent structural youth and underemployment; immediately reverse the federal government plan to raise the retirement age for old age security and guaranteed income supplement to 67; fix the Veterans Affairs by reopening those closed offices; and start to listen to Canadians and show them some respect.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to rise today to debate a particular section of Bill C-59, section 20, which deals with the sick leave and disability programs that the government wishes to impose upon the federal public service. This is nothing new.

Here is a passage from the October 2013 throne speech, in which the federal government announced, and I quote:

It will reform disability and sick-day entitlements and work with employees to get them back to work as soon as possible.

That almost implies that employees are absent not because they are sick, but because they can take sick leave. Before talking about Bill C-59, I would like to talk about a bill that was passed not long after the 2013 Speech from the Throne, and that is Bill C-4.

Bill C-4, which I had called at the time a rather explosive bill, indeed, exploded the relationship between our federal public service and the Government of Canada, in a number of ways. It changed legislation that governed the federal public service and, also, the workers who fell under the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada, through the Canada Labour Code, in a number of ways. I will mention three.

The government gave itself the ability to define “essential services” in a way that had not existed before. It was, before the adoption of Bill C-4, a mechanism where both parties, the employer and the employees, could present their arguments and the body that rendered the decision was a rather respected one. However, this law now, essentially, gives the authority entirely to the government.

The other thing is that the unions will no longer have the right to arbitration, which was a very important tool that has been used repeatedly over the past decades. However, now, arbitration would be an option only if 80% of the members do a job that is considered essential. The government has given itself the right to very easily control the union's ability to use arbitration by taking away the essential right to the renegotiation tool that works well when the parties cannot come to an agreement.

If the unions manage to win the right to an arbitration, the government had also changed the conditions that arbitrators can use. They can only refer to the government's financial situation or recruitment and retention issues in the public service, nothing else. That was not the case before.

Finally, the arbitration boards will no longer be independent. Basically, they report to the government.

In addition, there is another matter that I should mention. The definition of “danger” is changing, which would affect not only the 200,000-plus core public servants, but also the 800,000 other employees in Canada who fall under the Canada Labour Code, and the minister, or one of his delegates, is now responsible for defining “danger”. That sets us back at least 50 years. Given the tremendous progress we have made, regarding the rights of unionized workers in our country, I believe, now, that the public service and the workers governed by the Canada Labour Code are less well-served.

Back, now, to Bill C-59.

I wrote a blog on October 15, 2014, and I will quote it now.

[The President of the Treasury Board] has now proposed replacing the current system of banked sick leave with a new short-term disability plan and has warned that annual sick leave may be limited to five days a year [he has now offered six], which is a draconian cut from the 15 days currently allowed through negotiated collective agreements. Paid sick leave is not a perk that can be given or taken away at the discretion of the employer, but a contractual benefit of employment negotiated over time and representing, along with salary and other forms of leave, the mutually agreed worth of the work provided by employees.

A Treasury Board report has warned of a heavy fiscal liability that the government’s obligation to provide sick leave apparently represents, but the report is mistaken or misleading in several respects. To start with, a theoretical liability is meaningless when a great number of public servants do not use all their sick leave entitlements. Furthermore, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) has noted that the so-called liability includes work-related injuries and unpaid sick leave which are not relevant to the current discussion and negotiation. The PBO has also argued that the incremental costs of paid sick leave are minimal when departments do not backfill sick employees, which is the case with most departments and agencies. Finally, numbers are skewed when individual sick leave days are placed in the same basket as the forced draining of an employee’s banked sick leave immediately prior to long term disability.

The current system serves an important purpose: workers should not be going to work sick as this would impede their own recovery and may put co-workers—or the public—at risk of illness as well. We should be promoting healthy workplaces.

Let us hope that this situation will be resolved by good faith negotiation and not by another piece of legislation embedded in yet another omnibus bill.

That is the end of my blog entry from October 2014. Unfortunately, that is exactly where we are now. Bill C-59 basically contains a measure giving the President of the Treasury Board the power to do whatever he wants, regardless of existing laws.

This morning we saw a headline in the Ottawa Citizen that made mention of the fact that the President of the Treasury Board is pressuring unions for a sick leave deal by the fall. In Bill C-4, the government established and tilted in its favour the capacity to negotiate, or dictate really, to the public servants of our country. Now, in Bill C-59, we are seeing a provision that would give the President of the Treasury Board the ability to dictate, when he wants, measures that have not been negotiated and that I do not believe would result in agreement. In the budget that was adopted in this House, the government and one of the ministers said that it is cast in stone, is expecting to recover $900 million worth of benefits this year from the sick leave program that our public servants benefit from. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, we have a situation here that is not appropriate.

We should also note some numbers. Of the core public service staff, 25% have fewer than 10 days of banked sick leave, and 60% do not have enough banked days to bridge the gap to disability. Federal public servants currently have 15 days per year and can carry unused days over, which the government wants to stop, however the banked days are forfeited upon retirement. If there is abuse or if conditions need to be changed, five of the largest unions have been negotiating with Treasury Board since last June, apparently there are now 18, and have indicated a willingness to correct measures that may not be as solid as they should be. However, for the government to dictate that we will go from 15 to 6 days, non-accumulative, is not appropriate. That would create a situation in our public service that would not favour the service to the public.

In the past we have had a very solid relationship with our federal public service. Starting in the 60s when the prime minister at the time, Mr. Pearson, recognized the right to strike, and until 1984, 41% of our employees in Canada were unionized. That has now dropped back. In that period of time we had a great compression of the inequalities among the salaries of people. Since then it has been increasing. That is a serious difficulty that not just I but the World Economic Forum has identified as the world's single largest problem. The way we are dealing with our federal public service will not help solve that at all. It is a sad way for us to go, and I would hope that we would consider going in another direction rather than in this one.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-59 today, the Conservatives' latest omnibus budget bill.

Bill C-59 comes from an old tired government that has completely lost touch with Canadians.

It is clear that today, as I share my time with the member for Ottawa—Vanier, we both agree that the government has to do more to create jobs and growth.

This morning we received yet another reminder of that. Thousands of workers—in fact, 1,500—at Bombardier in Montreal and Toronto are to be let go. This is not an isolated incident. It is part of a long-term trend of stagnant economic growth and a flatlined labour market.

In fact, we have 169,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians today than in 2008. We have twice the number of long-term unemployed in Canada, the people who are unemployed for over a year. In fact, in my riding and part of the riding next door, Kings County, Hants County, and Annapolis County, in that Stats Canada catchment area, unemployment has gone from 4.8% in 2008 to 11.6% today. There are 10,000 fewer jobs in Kings County, Hants County, and Annapolis County than in 2008.

Too many Canadians have been laid off or face having to replace full-time work with part-time jobs. This legislation does next to nothing to help those Canadians. Canada needs a government with a plan to help create jobs and growth. The Canadian economy has not just stalled; it is in reverse. According to Stats Canada, our economy has actually been shrinking in 2015.

Unfortunately, this legislation does not have a plan for jobs and growth and does not do anything to strengthen Canada's struggling middle class. Instead, the Conservatives have bundled together a large number of unrelated measures that simply do not belong in a budget bill. I would like to give a few examples.

Bill C-59 makes retroactive changes to exempt long gun registry data from Canada's information and privacy laws. That seems like an odd provision in a budget bill. What is more worrisome is that this morning the Information Commissioner revealed the real reason behind this, that she has recommended laying charges against the RCMP, almost two months ago, for withholding and destroying data in the gun registry.

Apparently the RCMP jumped the gun and destroyed the data while legislation to repeal the registry was still before Parliament. That shows a shocking disregard for Parliament, but it is also against the law.

How did the Conservative government react? Richard Nixon would have been proud of the Prime Minister. Instead of listening to the Information Commissioner and laying charges, the Conservatives decided to retroactively rewrite the law. They are using Bill C-59 to go back in time and to make legal what was illegal. In the words of the Information Commissioner, Bill C-59 “sets a perilous precedent against Canadians' quasi-constitutional right to know”.

Bill C-59 also includes other measures that have no business being in a budget bill. It introduces new rules on the use of secret evidence in court as well as the use of biometric information in immigration applications. It establishes the parliamentary protective service and new security force on Parliament Hill. It makes piecemeal changes to the Copyright Act. None of these items belong in a budget bill. None of them have to do with the fiscal framework of the country.

The Conservatives have bundled them together in a single bill in order to limit scrutiny and ram these measures through Parliament in a matter of weeks. The process is sloppy. It leads to mistakes, and inevitably with the government, it will use another omnibus bill to correct the errors from the last omnibus bill. It is a never-ending cycle of Conservative incompetence and disrespect for Parliament.

One example is in the area of income splitting. Bill C-59 includes the Conservatives' fourth attempt at passing the correct income-splitting rules. Canadians already know that this income-splitting scheme is unnecessarily complex. Now we have to follow an 85-step process just to apply.

Now it turns out that the process is so confusing that even the tax experts writing the rules got them wrong the first three times they came to Parliament. On Monday night, a finance official admitted that there is an error in the income-splitting rules.

The Conservatives made a mistake that is shortchanging some families by as much as $750 on their 2014 tax return. It is affecting Canadian families that qualify for both income splitting and the tuition, education, and textbook tax credits.

This error was in the ways and means motion that the House of Commons passed last November. It was there again in the ways and means motion that the House passed on March 25. It showed up a third time in Bill C-57.

This budget bill represents the Conservative government's fourth attempt to get it right. This is the Conservatives' flagship policy. Income splitting is not just unnecessarily complex; it is also unfair, unreliable, and bad for growth. It is unfair because it excludes 85% of Canadian households from any benefit whatsoever. It does nothing to help some of Canada's most vulnerable parents, single parents, or low-income families.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer issued a report showing that high-income families are far more likely to qualify for income-splitting benefits. In fact, families in the top quintile of income are the most likely to qualify. The PBO's report also shows that the average benefits under income splitting rise with family income. Families earning at least $180,000 per year get the highest average benefit. Yet these are exactly the people who need the help the least.

Income splitting is also unreliable. Just because people qualify for it one year does not mean they will benefit the next. The benefit can vanish whenever circumstances change. For example, a family can become disqualified when primary earners lose their job or see their pay drop.

Finally, the PBO has shown that it would actually weaken Canada's economic growth rather than strengthen it. The PBO estimates that income splitting will lead to the equivalent of 7,000 fewer full-time jobs in the Canadian economy.

The Liberals, and the Liberal Party of Canada, have a plan that is fair, simple, and good for the economy. We would replace the Conservatives' income-splitting scheme and a complex array of benefits with a single tax-free monthly cheque that is easier to receive and means more money in the pockets of low- and middle-income families.

Under the Liberal plan for fairness, a typical two-parent family with two children, earning $90,000 per year would receive $490 every month, tax free. That is $2,500 more per year than under the current Conservative plan. A Liberal government would also make the tax system fairer and cut the middle class tax rate by 7%. That is a $3 billion tax cut for those who need it the most.

We would ask the wealthiest Canadians to help, to pay a little more so the middle class can pay less. Canada's middle-class families are tapped out. They are struggling to make ends meet. They have not had a pay raise or a real tax cut to benefit their families in a long time.

Fairness means giving more to the middle class and those working hard to join it. The Conservatives, on the other hand, are only helping those who need the help the least.

Canadians now have two fundamentally different choices. The Conservatives offer tax breaks to the wealthy. We, as Liberals, believe in a country that works for everyone. We believe we can do more for those who need it the most by doing a little less for those who do not need the help.

The Conservatives are out of touch with the challenges faced by middle-class families. They are out of ideas on how to strengthen the economy. Canadians know it is time for change. It is time for a Liberal government with a plan for fairness for Canada's middle class. We will present to Canadians a plan for jobs and growth, investing in infrastructure, investing in people and skills for the jobs of today and the jobs of tomorrow.

Our priority is clear, we must strengthen those at the heart of our economy, middle-class Canadians who have not had a decent raise in 30 years. We cannot have a sustained long-term economic recovery without a strong middle class.

Liberals will continue to present solutions to grow our economy and to help Canada's struggling middle class. We will give Canadians a real choice for hope for a better future and a plan to actually lead us to that future in October when Canadians have an opportunity to choose a better government.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to outline some of the reasons I will be supporting our government's budget and its budget implementation bill, Bill C-59.

Before I go into the details about the new investments and the tax relief the budget proposes and how Bill C-59 would make this happen, I want to stress how important it is that our government has had all of these significant achievements while balancing the budget. An election promise made is an election promise kept.

As a result of our government's fiscal management, our country emerged from the recession faster and stronger than virtually any other advanced economy. When the recession ended, we charted a course to a balanced budget, but not by following the Liberal approach to budget management of making drastic, sudden cuts to social and health care transfers, or by raising taxes. Instead, we did the opposite, increasing provincial transfers to record levels to help the provinces get their fiscal houses in order and lowering taxes to put money back into the pockets of families and small businesses.

To the first point, Alberta alone would receive $5.5 billion in transfers this year, which would be an increase of 145% over those of the previous Liberal government.

We then focused on controlling operating expenses for federal departments by reviewing all spending to make government operations more efficient. Using this approach, since the height of the great recession the deficit has been reduced from $55.6 billion to a surplus of $1.4 billion for 2015-16.

Due to the growth in Canada's economy and the elimination of the deficit, our total government net debt burden is the lowest of any G7 nation and among the lowest of the advanced G20 countries.

As a result of our efforts, our government has been able to cut taxes 180 times, resulting in our country's lowest tax burden since the 1950s.

To ensure that Canada keeps its fiscal house in order, economic action plan 2015 includes a number of important measures to help Canada stay on the right track, most notably through balanced budget legislation.

Part 3, on page 38 of Bill C-59, presents the framework for this balanced budget legislation by mandating that should Canada again enter into deficit, the finance minister would be required to testify before the House of Commons Committee on Finance within 30 days and present a plan, with concrete timelines, to return to balanced budgets.

Moreover, should the deficit be due to a recession or other extraordinary circumstances, operating spending would be frozen, as would the salaries of cabinet ministers and deputy ministers government-wide.

If, on the other hand, the deficit was due to mismanagement, operating budgets would be frozen automatically, and the salaries of cabinet ministers and deputy ministers alike would be reduced by 5%.

This approach would ensure that increases in spending that might be required to respond to a recession, war, or some natural disaster would be temporary, targeted, and timely.

In central Alberta, one of the key pillars of our local economy is agriculture. This budget, like previous ones, would continue to support agriculture and farmers in our great region and throughout all of Canada.

Agriculture is truly the backbone of our nation. As a farmer, I understand the difficulties individuals in the agriculture sector face. Economic action plan 2015 would embrace the economic importance of agriculture by increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1 million for farmers and fishermen, allowing them to keep more of their lifelong earnings for retirement.

Additionally, this budget would provide funding to the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Market Access Secretariat, allowing the agriculture sector to take advantage of new free trade deals to expand and diversify into new markets.

The economic action plan of 2015 would build upon previous support for farmers and agriculture, including over $3 billion in investment, including provincial and territorial contributions, toward innovation, competitiveness, and market development for Canada's agricultural sector under Growing Forward 2.

We have also fully delivered on our government's commitment to marketing freedom by increasing marketing choice for western Canadian grain farmers by facilitating the commercialization of the Canadian Wheat Board, which will ensure a strong and competitive grain handling and shipping network across Canada.

Another major issue that is quite close to my heart is, of course, our government's support for seniors. Through this budget, our government has proposed a number of changes to help make seniors' lives better and to help them stay in their homes longer.

Having just a small amount of time, I can only focus on a few of the many policy initiatives our government has proposed. The first I would like to speak to is the increase in the tax-free savings account.

Seniors have embraced the tax-free savings account for their saving needs. This budget, through the BIA, proposes to increase the annual contribution limit to $10,000. This, coupled with changes to RRSP withdrawal amounts, would provide seniors with even greater opportunities to manage their life savings.

As of the end of 2013, nearly 11 million individuals had opened TFSAs, and the total value of assets held in TFSAs was nearly $120 billion. While the opposition continues to spread misinformation that the TFSA accounts are only for the rich, the facts cannot be overlooked. In the income category of $20,000 to $25,000, over 124,000 Canadians maxed out their limit. Of those who have maxed out their TFSAs, 60% earn less than $60,000. Some 856,000 Canadians aged 65 and over have maxed out their contributions, and another 1.3 million 55 and older have done the same. Close to 2. 7 million seniors had TFSAs by the end of 2013, and 60% of seniors who had TFSAs earned less than $40,000.

I think this is clear proof of how tax-free savings accounts are beneficial for all Canadians and are especially embraced by seniors and middle- to low-income individuals.

The second major policy change to support seniors I want to focus on is one that would help seniors stay in their homes longer. This is important and much needed, because as seniors age, their homes become increasingly less accessible, and they are often forced to move into more accessible housing, such as retirement and nursing homes. This can be incredibly difficult and stressful.

Our government recognizes the challenges seniors face in remaining mobile and independent and as a result has introduced a new home accessibility tax credit. This proposed tax credit would be for home improvements that would allow a senior or a person eligible for a disability tax credit to be more mobile, safe, and functional within his or her own home. This 15% non-refundable income tax credit would apply to up to $10,000 in eligible home renovation expenditures, providing up to $1,500 in tax relief. Through the home accessibility tax credit, Canadian seniors would be able to stay in their homes longer, I cannot stress enough how important that is.

The last initiative I want to talk about is the extension of the employment insurance compassionate care benefit from six weeks to six months. This is important to all Canadians, because from time to time, a large number of Canadians are forced to leave their jobs to take care of their loved ones. This can put a huge financial stress on families. Our government has recognized this problem, and through economic action plan 2015, an allocation of up to $37 million has been made annually to extend employment insurance compassionate care benefits. This would help reduce the stress at a very stressful time and help families help themselves.

In summary, it is clear that our government's economic action plan of 2015 and this budget implementation act, which sets the framework for legislative change, would be beneficial for all Canadians.

Our expanded limit for tax-free savings accounts of $10,000 would allow hard-working Canadians to save more.

Farmers throughout Canada would continue to benefit from our aggressive trade policy, which has opened up new markets that will help grow our agriculture sector and our economy as a whole. The increase in the lifetime capital gains exemption would give farmers and fisherman more money they can use for retirement.

Through our balanced budget legislation, future generations would not live in fear of being saddled with irresponsible spending and mountains of debt.

All in all, this entire budget is something to be proud of, and I encourage members of the opposition to join me in supporting it.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we have no shortage of very important work to attend to.

This afternoon and tomorrow we will continue debating Bill C-59, economic action plan 2015 act, no. 1, to implement important measures from the spring's budget, such as the family tax cut, enhancements to the universal child care benefit and a reduction to the small business income tax.

The parties across the way have made no secret of their opposition to the excellent tax reduction measures we have proposed, and this week the hon. member for Papineau explained why. As he told the House on Tuesday, “benefiting every single family is not...fair”. Well, that is consistent with his approach to fiscal policy, that budgets balance themselves.

However, our budget implementation bill will deliver those benefits to every family, because that is the fair Canadian thing to do.

After our constituency week, on Monday, May 25, we will debate Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act at report stage. This bill will improve opportunities for economic development north of 60.

After question period that same day, we will take up Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act at report stage, and hopefully third reading. Unnecessary, cumbersome red tape facing law-abiding gun owners across Canada will be reduced, thanks to this legislation.

Also, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), I am appointing that day, Monday, May 25, as the day for consideration, in a committee of the whole, of all votes in the main estimates, for 2015-16, related to finance.

Tuesday, May 26, will be the fifth allotted day. We will debate a Liberal proposal. I expect the Liberal leader will explain why helping every family is not fair.

We will return to the third reading debate on Bill C-52, the Safe and Accountable Rail Act, on Wednesday, May 27, when I am hopeful that it will pass.

The following day, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill S-3, the Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act. In debate last week, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said, “Soon, we will pass this bill”. I look forward to her NDP colleagues proving the hon. member right.

Later that Thursday, we will start the report stage for Bill S-7, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, which will re-affirm this Parliament’s ongoing efforts to end violence against women and girls.

Second Reading

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and offer my thoughts on Bill C-59, the budget implementation bill.

Once again, I have a number of reservations about this budget. Sadly, we on this side of the House cannot support it. Once again, the Conservatives have slipped several measures into this budget in order to justify their lament that the opposition does not support certain measures.

For example, we would like to support the measures to assist veterans, but the Conservatives have slipped them into a mammoth budget implementation bill.

At 150 pages, it is shorter than some, like BillC-38, which had hundreds of pages. When the Conservatives were in opposition, they denounced mammoth bills, even if they had only a few dozen pages. Today we are looking at a 150-page bill.

This is stopping us from holding a full debate on the provisions of the bill. This was the case with Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, and now it is the case with Bill C-59. The opposition members, like the government members, who should be keeping an eye on their own government, are simply not able to do so with the means available to them.

I would like to point out that the Conservatives have imposed time allocation for the 96th time, limiting the time available to debate a bill as important as the budget. This makes no sense. The NDP would have liked to support certain measures in the bill, because they are ideas put forward originally by the NDP that the government decided to borrow. For this, I congratulate the government.

For instance, the tax rate on small and medium-sized businesses will go from 11% to 9%. The change will be made over five years, because the Conservatives have decided to spread the measure over a number of years, but it will be quite helpful to SMEs, which are the ones creating jobs in Canada. This measure deserves our support, but unfortunately, the Conservatives have combined measures that we can support with ones that we simply cannot support.

Moreover, the budget contains no measures regarding the Transport Canada wharfs. The Conservatives were very happy to spend time in eastern Canada recently, to underline their $33 million investment in the Transport Canada port divestiture program.

Unfortunately, this is the same $33 million that was announced last year, and $9 million of it has already been spent. There is only $24 million left to be shared among the 50 wharfs that the government is proposing to transfer. Two of the Transport Canada wharfs are in my riding, and just these two would exceed the amount of money that remains for the 50 wharfs across Canada that the government would like to transfer.

When the government says it is helping people, what does that mean in concrete terms? We cannot accept their offer, because it is just too little.

Recently, I heard a Conservative MP saying that the Conservatives had introduced one of the largest infrastructure programs in Canada’s history. However, this money will be spent in the future. They have announced amounts of money that the budget does not cover at all, and they are trying to make us believe that with a budget of $54 billion over 10 years they are going to spend the largest amount of money in Canada’s history on infrastructure.

Unfortunately, the facts tell quite a different story. Last year, the government spent only $250 million of the $54 billion. Its assistance to municipalities and organizations to implement infrastructure programs was extremely discreet.

It is disgraceful that the government is congratulating itself about money it has never spent and that it is trying to make people believe that it is carrying out this program, even though it is a phantom program, since we are unable to find this money.

Furthermore, this budget does not help the regions, and in fact the opposite is true.

The Conservatives say that they have balanced the budget, but once again, they have done so using both the contingency fund and the employment insurance fund.

This year, the government is planning to filch $1.7 billion from the employment insurance fund to balance its budget. It likes to brag about its $1.8 billion surplus, but it is pretty clear where that money came from. The government is even planning to help itself to $17 billion from the employment insurance fund over five years. It is quickly catching up to the Liberals' record. They too bragged about balancing a budget, and they too did so at workers' expense. Since the Chrétien government's reform, the government has taken $57 billion from the employment insurance fund. The Liberals swiped $50 billion, the Conservatives $7 billion. Now they are planning to snatch another $17 billion from the fund.

They say they are going to balance the budget, but they are doing so at the expense of the poorest, the neediest. Seasonal workers and workers who lose their jobs will pay the price. Roughly four out of 10 workers are not even entitled to employment insurance benefits even though they all contribute to the fund. Those people will never see a penny. The government is busy taking money from the insurance fund and, instead of giving it to the people who contribute, funnelling it into programs that will benefit Canada's wealthiest people.

With regard to the Conservatives' proposed income splitting, the Parliamentary Budget Officer clearly said that only 15% of Canadians will benefit, and most of them are among the wealthiest people in this country.

The wealthiest people do not need more help. There are some Canadians who are unemployed and others who are facing job losses. Today, 1,700 employees of Bombardier, a pillar of Canadian industry, are unemployed. They are facing an employment insurance fund that has been pillaged repeatedly by the government. There is no more room to manoeuvre.

When the government says that it has balanced the budget, it means that we are at the point where the government has squeezed programs so much that there is no more room to manoeuvre. Someone who has lost a job or works part time will find it very difficult to make ends meet.

Today's budget is simply not going to help the poor, and that includes measures like income splitting and tax-free savings accounts, or TFSAs. The tax-free savings account limit is being raised to $10,000. In my riding, I can tell you that the number of people who can take advantage of that and put $10,000 into a tax-free savings account is very small. What is more, that money will then not be spent in the riding; it will sit in a savings account.

We need programs that put money in people's pockets and encourage people to have a greater impact on their local economy. Those are the kinds of programs that will help grow the economy. We need to help small and medium-sized businesses, because they create jobs, and that is what will help create wealth. What matters to the NDP is putting money into the pockets of people who really need it, rather than giving more to rich.

I am very disappointed in this budget, which once again gives priority to people who will perhaps vote for the Conservatives in the upcoming election. Unfortunately, the people who are being ignored by this government and who will not get the help they need from this budget are precisely those who are currently unemployed or otherwise struggling. The budget contains very little for those individuals.

However, the budget does include something that I think is good for retirees regarding registered retirement income funds. Now people will have the choice to put off withdrawing from their RRIFs a little longer. This will help people who are retired. However, let us not forget that those who do not have the means to put enough money in an RRSP will have to wait until they are 67 before they can get old age security. They will pay dearly for not having enough money in an RRSP. This was done without warning and without consultation. The government simply imposed this.

These people did not have enough time to adjust their budget and now have a major deficit for their retirement years. This budget will do nothing to help them.

We absolutely need to have a budget that will help the less fortunate. The government has a role to play as an advocate for the people who are most in need. The government should help those in need, but unfortunately the budget before us does not do that.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that my colleague asked me that question because it proves my point.

Without necessarily getting into the wording of the title of the bill, which, again, is “An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget and other measures”, this is a typical example of something that falls under “other measures”.

Whether we are talking about security here or the issues I mentioned in the divisions I deemed important, such as abolishing the long gun registry and the amnesty given to actions that can be perceived as crime or obstruction, these aspects should be part of a separate bill so that the right committee can study all the pertinent repercussions.

As far as the issue of copyright and registration is concerned, my colleague and Canadian Heritage critic often talks to me rather passionately about how all these rights can be reconciled. It is not easy. If we make the companies happy, then the creators are not necessarily happy.

Did this not merit a respectful amount of time for consideration, either at the Standing Committee on Finance or at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, where this issue will likely end up and where we will not even have the right to make amendments? That is the problem with Bill C-59.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, and it really is a first, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. This is not the first time I have shared my time, but it is the first time I have remembered to mention it. I therefore have the honour of sharing my time with this excellent member.

I quite liked the speech by the hon. member who spoke before me. He is also the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I felt like telling him that it is not that we always want to spend more money. We want to spend Canadians' money on Canadians, whereas the Conservatives do not mind if that money is spent on a corporation.

It is all a question of nuance, and that is the big problem with Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures.

In the House, we are facing a time allocation motion—the 96th—which prevents members from across the country from speaking to such an important issue as the budget implementation bill. This bill is over 180 pages long and affects many laws. I especially want to talk in the House about other measures contained in controversial Bill C-59.

Since I do not believe that we will have the time to debate the bill at length, I will talk about three divisions that are of particular interest to me. I am referring to division 10, which concerns the parliamentary protective service, division 18 on the abolition of the long gun registry, and division 20, which deals with sick leave and disability programs. I will start with the last one I mentioned, namely, the division on sick leave and disability programs.

Since this bill was introduced, and even before that—the budget gave us a taste of what was to come—we have had the clear and distinct impression that the Government of Canada was set on what it was going to do, even though, over the years, it had made a commitment to its employees across the country who serve Canadians. I am a labour lawyer. We know how negotiations work. You give and you take. That is what negotiating is. In the end, you come to an agreement. Each party compromises in order to reach an agreement or a collective agreement. That is what happened in negotiations in previous years.

Now, with the stroke of a pen, the Conservatives have decided to take back what they had given to people, who for their part had also given up something in return. Thus, the government won concessions on some things over the years by giving these much talked-about sick benefits and a certain disability plan, that it is now taking back. That is not very democratic.

In my humble opinion, this could definitely be challenged in court and it is certainly not a way to treat those who are working here among the lawmakers in Parliament and delivering services to all Canadians. Make no mistake: this is a blatant lack of respect. When I hear the minister and the President of the Treasury Board saying that over 200 negotiation meetings have already been held, I think to myself that the Conservatives are very good at throwing all sorts of figures around, whenever and however they want, because they lump in pretty much anything and everything. They certainly did not hold intelligent and productive negotiations in good faith on this issue.

What is worse, this is like me saying to someone that I am going to negotiate with him, but then I just go ahead and do whatever I want, even if he does not in any way support my decision. That basically means that there will be no negotiation. That is what this provision of division 20 of Bill C-59 boils down to.

I can say that the NDP is strongly opposed to that way of doing things. If the Conservative government believes that the government negotiators were not able to negotiate the right things over the years, then it needs to do something about that. That is the government's decision. However, it should not take away from people the things that belong to them, and it should not be spreading false information. For example, it should not be saying that all federal government employees abuse the system and their sick leave. I think that is insulting to dedicated employees who work tirelessly to serve the public.

If the government wants to defend an argument, there are many ways of doing so other than spouting such nonsense. The employees who work for us should at least have our respect. This is certainly not a very respectful way of doing things. To all those who have written me to ask what our position is, I can tell them that the NDP's position is clear: the NDP does not support the government's position on this at all. We are going to vote against this measure and we are certainly going to clean up the mess. Heaven knows that there will be plenty of cleanup to do after the October 19 election.

I will now move on to the issue with division 18, which I find most worrisome. When we were debating the time allocation motion, the Minister of Finance answered a question regarding the division on ending the long gun registry. His response concerned me. Let us not kid ourselves. All of the members will hear about the letter from the Privacy Commissioner, Ms. Legault, who wrote to the Speaker of the House. She informed him of some facts that I find extremely worrisome. In short, she said that illegal acts were allegedly committed and documents were apparently destroyed, even though they should not have been destroyed and their destruction was not legal in any way. She even informed the Attorney General of Canada that the RCMP had committed this offence. Our RCMP. I get worried when these allegations come from an officer of Parliament as important as the Privacy Commissioner. Once again, we see a pattern. Just a few sentences in a budget implementation bill and the RCMP is absolved of everything it did illegally without legal authorization. That is absolutely despicable. This government claims to be a law and order government, but only when it sees fit. That is extremely worrisome.

The Minister of Finance gave a big, beautiful, super-intelligent response, saying that this was a promise the government had made in the 2011 election campaign. I listened carefully, because even though I do not necessarily share the government's views on the long gun registry, I can still admit that the Conservatives did promise to put an end to the long gun registry. I congratulate them for following through on their promise. I do not agree, but they did make that promise. However, in their election campaign they never talked about destroying data, nor did they talk about absolving those who may have been involved in the obstruction of justice or committed other offences. They certainly never talked about that.

I invite my colleagues, who have to deal with this issue with very little time, to pay particular attention to that. That is the problem with the government's approach, when it goes ahead with an omnibus bill that changes everything under the sun, even things that do not necessarily have anything to do with its main objective. I do not have high hopes in that regard.

As a final point, I would like to say a few words about division 10, which has to do with the parliamentary protective service. I encourage my colleagues to read that section. It reiterates the importance of our role as parliamentarians and outlines how that protection will be carried out. The RCMP is going to take over this task, under the authority of the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. The bill reiterates the principle that the work of parliamentarians must never be obstructed. Once again, I feel as though I am reading one thing, but living another.

My colleague from Toronto—Danforth argued this point in the question of privilege he raised, which was recognized by the Chair but reversed by the government. I heard my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques say that it was perhaps the last time we would have a chance to speak in the House on a budget bill. The Conservatives managed to balance the budget on the backs of just about everyone. This government has been the most undemocratic government I have seen in my life, throughout all the years that I spent following politics, as both a politician and a regular citizen.

I hope I got everyone's attention so that they will go read these three divisions. Public servants need not worry. The NDP understands them, appreciates their work, and will be there to repair the damage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask my colleague a question after his speech on the Conservatives' new-found passion for balanced budgets in 2015.

In Bill C-59, they have introduced a balanced budget act to require the government to balance the budget under certain circumstances.

Is my colleague prepared to make this measure retroactive, so that it applies to the Conservatives' last seven deficit budgets? Five of them would not have been accepted, according to the circumstances outlined in the budget implementation bill that allow a government to incur a deficit.

Would my colleague be prepared to make this proposal retroactive, so that cabinet ministers would have to pay out of their own pockets for all the Conservatives' deficit budgets that did not comply with the bill they are introducing today?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that members hoped I would get re-elected for another 40 years, but I do not think that is going to happen.

I appreciate the fact that this government, through this budget bill, has recognized the importance of retirement savings and that it is our constituents' money. They have not paid taxes on it, because they use the system we put in place as a government to encourage people to save for their future. However, we now have recognized that they will need that money for a longer period of time.

Let us be honest, the government of the day will get its taxes. The plan for RRSPs is that when earnings are higher, money is put away and one would receive a reduction on taxes at that time, but when one takes that money out, one would pay taxes on it then. We would expect to be earning less when we take the money out and therefore the tax rate should be slightly less. However, what was happening in Burlington, and I believe across the country as we heard from the MP from West Vancouver, because the marketplace was not performing as well in terms of the stock market, people were taking their money out of RRIFs and actually losing money. they were unable to get the return on that money that they could have if they had left it there. They lost money in their income funds, and then we were forcing them to take that money out, which became a double-edged sword. We have recognized that and have made some significant changes to the registered retirement income fund, which is great for savings for seniors across this country.

Therefore, I am very proud to be supporting Bill C-59 and we look forward to having the bill passed and in place for this fiscal year.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the riding of Oakville for sharing his time with me today. I am very honoured to stand to speak to Bill C-59.

I have made an attempt to speak to all of the budget bills that have come before us, whether at the time the policy is introduced or during the implementation bills. There are normally two. One is in the spring, after the budget has been presented in the House, to implement what is in the budget, and other measures. There is also, normally, an implementation bill in the fall, which I know will not happen this year because we will be out on the hustings, asking people to support us.

It is my pleasure to be here, particularly this year. Over the last number of years, I have been advocating with our finance minister and finance officials for changes to the RRIFs in terms of the minimum withdrawal. I did not come up with that on my own. I want to thank the over 40 individuals who came to my office over the last year or so to talk about the issue of the level of required withdrawals they had to make from their RRIFs. This is not an organized lobby. They are individuals and their families affected by the existing rules.

I also want to thank the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, who heard the same thing. We were very active with our colleagues on this side of the House on this issue, encouraging them to speak to the finance minister and financial officials about the possibility of looking at the withdrawal rate on RRIFs.

I was very excited to see that in this budget we have actually moved on it. Under the current system, the minimum withdrawal is 7.38%, and that will go down to 5.28%. Why is that important? Why did those 40 people come to see me, and what does it mean to them?

We have a couple of programs for retirement savings. We have the RRSP and RPP to encourage individuals to save for their retirement. Part of that encouragement is to give them tax relief for the amount of money they put away for their retirement.

A few years ago, the program required people to move that money from an RRSP, or the other savings program, into a registered retirement income fund. I believe the age for that was 68 or 69, but we moved it to 71, knowing that people had some more time and did not need the money that early. The fact is that people are living much longer than when this program was introduced decades ago. People need their retirement money to last longer. They need to be able to stretch it out to meet the needs they will have if they make into their 90s. Many of my constituents are making it into their 90s.

In my riding alone, the senior cohort is not only growing, it is actually the majority. That is over 55; it is not everyone over 71, However, that cohort is growing and moving forward and we need to be there now, making the changes now, so they can take advantage of it.

There is an excellent chart in the budget, which I would like to read into the record. Regarding the changes that we would make to RRIFs, or registered retirement income funds, let us look at the difference that it would make to an individual. Let us make the assumption, as the budget does, that it is $100,000. An 2% inflation rate is built into that, and the return on investment in their income fund is at 5%. Some will do better, some will do a little worse, but this is our chart.

At age 71, one would have $100,000. At age 80, under the existing rules, one would have $64,000 left, but under the new rules of this budget implementation legislation, it would be $77,000, a difference of 20%. This is a significant difference that those individuals could hold on to for the retirement funds that they need for basic living. Under the current rules, at age 85, it would be $47,000, which would go to $62,000. Many of my constituents are living into their nineties these days. At age 90, under the current rules, it would be $30,000. Under the new rules, it would be $44,000, and so on and so forth. It caps at $20,000 at 94 years of age.

This is important because people are getting older in all ridings in the country, not just mine. We expect individuals to save for their retirement. The other option is to look to governments to support everything, but it cannot afford it. The government will not have the tax base to support the growing bubble of retirees who are coming with the baby boom. We have tools for saving, whether that be the tax-free savings account, as previously mentioned, or the registered retirement savings plan, which encourage people to save for their retirement so they will have less reliance on government to support them.

However, what was happening in my riding, because of the minimum, at 7.38%; because of good planning, good strategy and my constituents working hard, understanding their future and saving money; they were being required to take money out, reducing the cash flow that they would need in the years to come.

In the past, we would think that someone 71 years old would have another decade and a half left here. However, people are living longer. Last year I lost a grandmother at 97 years old. I have a grandmother still with me who is 97 years old. I have had two grandfathers aged 89. I have known four great-grandparents. People are living longer, but I will let members know that it does not mean that I will be in this seat for another 40 years.

The House resumed from May 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Bill C-59—Time Allocation Motion

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-59 is in line with our government's plan for low taxes and a balanced budget to promote employment, growth and security. The budget implementation bill contains measures that were announced in economic action plan 2015. Many of these measures are tax-related, but they all achieve one main goal: Canada's long-term prosperity.

It is common practice, even for Liberal governments, to include various measures in a budget. That is nothing new or out of the ordinary.

As to the question about veterans, our Conservative government places the highest priority on making sure that veterans and their families have the support and the services that they need when they need them. Our government made significant progress in key areas, such as long-term financial security, increased family support and removing barriers of eligibility for certain financial benefits.

Canadian Armed Forces veterans who are moderately to seriously disabled as a result of their service will soon have additional benefits after age 65 and new money to support family caregivers. In addition, those from the Canadian reserve forces will receive fair financial benefits from VAC.

These new initiatives are evidence of our government's commitment to ensuring that Canadian veterans and their families are treated with care, compassion and respect.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is another sad day. This is the 96th time this government has invoked closure or time allocation in this Parliament. No other government has done that. Canada has never had a government that has abused time allocation and closure as much as this one has. This is a sign of arrogance and incompetence because many of the bills that the government has introduced in the House of Commons have been rejected by the courts. They reject the legislation because the government does not really double-check its bills as much as it needs to.

Sadly, this is the 96th time in this Parliament, which is the worst record of all time. It is three times worse than any other previous government for bringing in closure and time allocation.

The government is going to say that it is trying to do this for our veterans. We will recall that after years of neglect of our nation's veterans and years of just refusing, cutting back on services and treating our nation's veterans with disdain, the Conservatives finally introduced a bill that would help to improve the situation. That is Bill C-58, which has sat on the order paper all week. For days, the NDP has been standing up and asking for unanimous consent to get Bill C-58 for veterans into committee so that veterans can start getting the relief that is called for. Instead, the government is saying that it is going to make them wait even longer with Bill C-59.

The question is very simple. Why are the Conservatives playing so many games with veterans? Why do they not heed the message from Alberta and, instead of showing such arrogance and incompetence, why do they not work with the opposition parties so that they can get good legislation that is not rejected by the courts?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the bill;

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the second day allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Indian Affairs and Northern Development--Main Estimates, 2015-2016

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

Mr. Chair, it is an important study of which the member has been a key part. We have heard from aboriginal stakeholders from across the country and from aboriginal financial institutions, who are all talking about some of the challenges in accessing capital on reserve and some of the success stories.

Certainly, as we proceed with the study, we want to examine and identify the barriers to capital access, so that we can continue to overcome those as we have with the FNMLA and other important investments, such as our Bill C-59 with the first nations financial management authority.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak this evening to explain some of the impressive work our government is doing to drive economic development on reserve to my colleagues. When we talk about that, one of the biggest issues is access to capital. Right now our committee is in fact conducting a study on access to capital. We have heard some very interesting and impressive testimony to deal with some of the issues that are faced by first nations communities.

When we are talking about access to capital, we are talking about funding to start a small business or to expand a business, to perhaps purchase a family home, or to leverage real property and entice investors from off reserve. This remains an enormous problem due to section 89 of the Indian Act, which prevents fee simple ownership. Therefore, it really limits the use of property as a security when trying to negotiate that type of financing. That type of financing is critical for most businesses off reserve, the ability to leverage real property. This is essential for entrepreneurs, small business and really anyone who is seeking any amount of capital to start or expand a business.

Our government understands how this can limit the potential of first nations, so we are working with willing partners to try to find a solution to the problem.

One of the solutions we heard about a bit earlier was the First Nations Land Management Act. This is a great piece of opt-in legislation. It allows a participating first nation to actually opt out of 34 land-related sections of the Indian Act. It gives a first nation the ability to manage its lands and resources. It also gives it the ability to operate at the “speed of business”, a phrase we have heard many times. The inability to operate at the speed of business has been an incredible impediment to first nations communities.

Another important tool is the First Nations Fiscal Management Act. This is also opt-in legislation. This encourages first nations across Canada to establish property tax systems and strengthen fiscal management. It provides them with increased revenue raising tools, strong standards for accountability and access to capital markets available to other levels of governments. The act does this in three ways, through three aboriginal financial institutions: first, the First Nations Tax Commission; second, the Financial Management Board; and three, the First Nations Finance Authority. I will talk a bit about each.

The First Nations Tax Commission creates legal, administrative and infrastructure framework for first nations to establish property tax regimes. Property tax allows a first nations government to have a reliable stream of income that it can leverage into loans with other financial institutions to do all kinds of improvements on reserve.

The First Nations Financial Management Board certifies the financial management systems and performances of individual first nations. This ensures good governance and fiscal responsibility. It assists first nations in developing the capacity to meet their financial management requirements, provides the tools and guidance that will instill confidence in first nations financial management and reporting systems.

Finally, the First Nations Finance Authority issues bonds to borrowing first nations, secured by the revenue coming in from things like property tax and other revenues. The First Nations Finance Authority is a non-profit aboriginal government-owned and controlled institution built to provide all first nations and aboriginal governments, big or small, urban or remote, resource-rich or not, with the same finance instruments that other levels of government in Canada have at their disposal to build safe, healthy and prosperous communities. These bonds are sold on the market and provide participating first nations with an innovative way to access the capital required for economic development.

The First Nations Fiscal Management Act has been very successful, with strong and sustained demand from first nations to participate in the regime.

To build on this success, since 2007, the First Nations Financial Management Board, the First Nations Tax Commission and the First Nations Finance Authority have been working in concert with our government on a series of recommended changes to the act. These changes are designed to improve the legislation, reduce needless red tape and increase investor confidence. The overall goal is to improve the economic opportunities and well-being for first nations communities. In fact, we heard directly at committee during our study that changes were needed to make this operate more efficiently.

It makes me proud to say that Bill C-59, the budget implementation act, introduced on May 7, proposes 43 administrative and technical changes to the legislation. These changes would streamline participation in the regime by providing for first nations to be added by ministerial order rather than an order in council.

It would eliminate the duplication and needless red tape, and strengthen the confidence of capital markets and investors. For example, one proposed amendment would clarify that all certified first nations must remain in compliance with the certification requirements of the financial management board. This proposed legislation could have a significant and positive effect on first nations and I urge all hon. members to support it.

It is projected, and these projections are really quite exceptional, that if the act is amended as suggested, by 2020, a mere five years from now, 235 first nations will have opted into the regime, $70 million annually will be collected in property taxes, 100 first nations will have received certification from the First Nations Financial Management Board, and $1 billion in borrowing room will be available to borrowing members. This is the example of being able to leverage that revenue stream and turn it into funding for infrastructure projects on first nations reserves. This is an exceptional opportunity.

To date, the regime has been very successful and I welcome the opportunity for more first nations to become active participants. Demonstrating the potential advantages for first nations of this regime, in June of last year, 14 first nations from British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Ontario were part of the first nations finance authority's inaugural $90 million bond. The proceeds of this bond are being used for vital things, such as building roads, water, waste water systems, public buildings, as well as refinancing existing bank loans and economic opportunities both on and off reserve.

In fact, in some of the testimony heard at committee, this would allow a first nation community to save $140,000 a month, which is equivalent to building one house on reserve. The bond issuance was a significant achievement for first nations and the first nations finance authority.

Chief Terry Paul of the Membertou First Nation in Nova Scotia, which raised $21 million through the bond, and the chair of the FNFA, stated:

Today, First Nations have made a significant step forward as economic equals with other governments. Over the long-term, this will have a profound and positive impact in our communities.

The first nations finance authority is currently working toward issuing its second bond, which it expects to exceed $100 million later this year. Access to capital is the key to unlocking the economic potential of our first nation communities.

I now have some questions.

On May 7, 2015, the government took, as I stated, another important step to promote prosperity in first nations communities and introduced Bill C-59, which includes a number of amendments to the First Nations Fiscal Management Act. Earlier this year, the aboriginal affairs committee heard testimony from Manny Jules, Harold Calla and Ernie Daniels, all of whom had worked hard to identify ways that the act could be improved.

Could the parliamentary secretary share with the rest of the committee of the whole what the proposed amendments to the First Nations Fiscal Management Act intend to achieve?

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

Mr. Chair, I was hoping the minister could talk a bit about the amendments to the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, which are part of Bill C-59, the budget implementation act that was introduced this week.

Bill C-59—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to budget 2015 and Bill C-59, an act that would implement various measures contained within the budget. The budget contains many measures that I know Canadians are looking forward to seeing put in place.

Before I go on, I should inform the House that I plan to split my time with my hon. colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette.

I would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance on his first budget and, especially, for all of the hard work that he has put into it. It has long been my view that governments should spend when spending is necessary and save taxpayers' money when saving is possible. This budget controls spending within a balanced budget and provides important tax breaks and cost-saving measures for taxpayers. For this, I congratulate the minister on his very important work.

I would like to acknowledge the work that was carried out by the previous minister of finance, my good friend, Mr. Jim Flaherty. Mr. Flaherty paved the way for this budget during his time as the minister of finance. He oversaw important stimulus funding during the recession and reeled in spending following the recession. His success as minister of finance has allowed Canada to be in the strong economic position that it is in today.

In terms of the budget itself, I am pleased to see that it is balanced. A balanced budget allows governments to cut taxes and pay down debt. It should be noted that before the 2008 recession, this government had already paid down $37 billion of federal debt. This has allowed Canada to emerge from the recession as a global economic leader with the lowest net debt to GDP ratio in the G7.

Canadians expect the government to work within its means, as they have to. That is why having this balanced budget is so important. The budget is balanced while at the same time maintaining record transfers to the provinces for health and education, and keeping the overall federal tax burden at its lowest level in more than 50 years.

This is no easy feat, but maintaining balanced budgets when possible is what is expected of any government. That is why I am pleased to see that the government has introduced legislation to ensure that all future budgets, except during times of recession, are balanced.

I recently hosted a community teleforum for residents in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, which allowed constituents to vote on several poll questions and call in to express support for or concern about actions of the government. There were several callers who expressed their appreciation that the government had balanced the books. Furthermore, I asked participants to vote on a poll question related to the new balanced budget legislation. The result was an immense amount of support for this legislation.

Having discussed the efforts that the government has taken to balance the budget, I would now like to highlight several measures contained within this implementation act that would greatly benefit residents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and, indeed, all Canadians.

The first measure is the reduction in the small business tax rate from 11% to 9% by the year 2019. This measure will affect 100% of the small businesses in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and will support the local economies of the many small communities in the area. It is estimated that this measure will reduce taxes for small businesses by $2.7 billion over the 2015-16 to 2019-20 fiscal years. This is an extremely positive measure that is very widely supported.

Another measure that I am supportive of is the increase in the lifetime capital gains exemption from $800,000 to $1 million for owners of farms and fishing businesses. Several farmers in my riding over the past couple of years have expressed support for this measure and we are very happy to see that it is in there. They realize that it will keep more money in the pockets of farmers who are trying to pass on their farms to the next generation. Without this, when they transfer capital, it will otherwise be lost in taxes. This is a huge benefit. In all my work and time on the agriculture committee, and the minister was there today, we are always looking at different ways that allow young farmers to get into the business, and this is a big one.

The lifetime capital gains exemption was increased in budget 2007 from $500,000 to $750,000, and then increased in 2013 to $800,000 and now up to $1 million. That is double over the course of those years. Since 2007, it has been more than doubled, and that is great news for all farmers.

Furthermore, increasing the tax-free savings account annual contribution limit to $10,000 is a very positive measure for many residents in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I have already had several constituents contact me asking when they can begin investing more in their TFSAs. I have been pleased to inform them that this measure is effective for the 2015 taxation year. Despite what some people have said about this measure, the TFSA helps many seniors and low and middle-income Canadians save their money. In fact, more than half of tax-free savings account holders earn less than $42,000 per year, and nearly 700,000 seniors who earn less than $22,000 have a TFSA. Therefore, this measure supports a wide range of Canadians.

Along with the TFSA, seniors rely on their registered retirement income funds, or RRIFs as they are commonly known. Many seniors welcomed the announcement that budget 2015 would reduce the minimum withdrawal factors for their RRIFs. Currently, seniors are required to withdraw 7.38% of their RRIFs in the year they turn 71. Although I cannot remember the year, we actually raised that age from 69 to 71. The percentage then increases each year until age 94, when it is capped at 20%.

The new RRIF factors would range from 5.28% at age 71 to 18.79% at age 94. This would allow seniors to have greater flexibility when drawing on their retirement savings and it would also reduce their risk of outliving their savings. It is important to point out that seniors raised that money during their working years, and we have enabled them to use it to enhance their retirement, but more on their terms versus the government's.

Finally, the bill would also implement several important measures to support our veterans and their families. This would be done by providing a new retirement income security benefit to moderately to severely disabled veterans, expanding access to the permanent impairment allowance for disabled veterans, and creating a new tax-free family caregiver relief benefit to recognize caregivers of veterans. These important measures would ensure that our brave men and women would have the support they need and most certainly deserve.

In conclusion, I would like to highlight the success of this and previous budgets since 2006.

Since 2006, a typical two-earner Canadian family of four will receive tax relief and increased benefits of up to $6,600. This is due to the fact that the government has consistently been lowering taxes and introducing support measures. I believe we are up to around 140 different taxes that this government has cut. I stand to be corrected on that number, but I believe I am pretty close. That is a lot.

When we hear from constituents, some will say that a certain tax cut does not benefit them. One thing I remind constituents is that not every tax cut benefits every Canadian. For example, seniors will not benefit from what we have done for families with young children, the same way young people will not benefit from things put in place for seniors. Overall, every Canadian will benefit from at least one of our cuts.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of the people of Bourassa, whom I represent, and to present the position of the Liberal Party on omnibus Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures.

This bill says a lot about the Conservative government's current state. It is obvious that we are headed towards an election. This government has always had a single priority: remaining in power. Therefore, it is not surprising that budget 2015 and the bill before us are all about electioneering. Unfortunately for Canadians, when electioneering becomes the sole priority, the government loses all its vision. There is nothing in the budget for economic growth, jobs, the environment or first nations.

The major challenges that we are up against today are completely ignored. Why? There is an election this year, and the sole purpose of the Conservatives' budget is to please its political base. The priorities are now giving gifts to the wealthy and partisan advertising.

The only thing that almost made me smile yesterday after my team, the Canadiens, lost, was the knowledge that we will no longer have to watch the Conservatives' partisan ads at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. The measures in this bill, which we are supposed to be debating today, have already been advertised to all Canadian homes, as though Parliament had nothing to say about the matter. That is essentially how it works under the current government. The Prime Minister governs, and once he has ruled, we, as representatives of Canadians, have nothing left to say. We are familiar with this. Even the members on the other side of the House are muzzled.

I rise today in the House to debate this bill, but I also rise in direct protest of this undemocratic way of running the country's affairs. Fortunately there is an election this fall. It is high time for change. This government is preparing for an election instead of governing, so it is no surprise that its bill is completely out of touch with Canadians' priorities. Although the bill does contain some small measures that we support, its main elements are policies that will simply not benefit Canadian society. That is why we will not support this bill.

I would like to list some of the measures in this bill that are utterly unacceptable. Let us start with income splitting. This is a clear example of how out of touch with reality the Conservatives are because, as we know, only families whose two incomes are in different tax brackets will benefit. That excludes single-parent families. Even a family that the Conservatives would consider typical, a four-person family—according to their 2014 budget—would not get a cent from that. I am talking about people with incomes ranging from $48,000 to $72,000. Such a couple cannot benefit from income splitting at all. We might wonder why the Conservatives are bound and determined to implement this unfair measure that will not do anything for the economy. Put simply, this is an election promise. It was a mistake in 2011, and it is still a mistake now. Still, they insist on bringing in income splitting. Ever since they made that promise, publications and testimonies discrediting the measure have been piling up.

If the government would get its head out of the sand, it would have heard when the C.D. Howe Institute was the first to sound the alarm way back in October 2011. That organization said that 85% of Canadian families would receive nothing, and that among two-parent families, nearly half would receive absolutely nothing or just a few scraps.

In January 2014 the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives was the next one to say that 86% of families would not receive anything and that 60% of families with the lowest incomes, that is under $56,000, would receive only $50, on average, based on the Conservatives' proposed income splitting.

In June 2014 the Broadbent Institute said that nine out of ten families would not get anything. This measure, which targets families with children under the age of 18, has completely missed the mark. Most of them will receive absolutely nothing.

This year, on March 17, the Parliamentary Budget Officer was the next in line to say that the Conservatives' plan for income splitting will cost $2.2 billion in 2015. He estimates that the average benefit will go to families with incomes above $180,000, and that this measure will encourage the person with the lower income, the secondary income, to leave the labour market to try to take advantage of it, which could cost up to 7,000 full-time jobs. Once again, the Conservatives' income splitting measure will cost $2.2 billion.

It is no surprise that, even among the Conservative ranks, some members oppose this measure. I hope they will say so publicly, here today in the House. Yes, some will be held to account, but I also want to talk about one Conservative in particular. The former finance minister, the late Jim Flaherty, had been sounding the alarm from the beginning. On February 12, 2014, he said, and I quote:

I think income-splitting needs a long, hard analytical look...to see who it affects and to what degree, because I'm not sure that overall, it benefits our society.

He added:

It benefits some parts of the Canadian population a lot and other parts of the Canadian population virtually not at all.

The Conservative government insisted on introducing income splitting anyway.

Income splitting has gotten a lot of coverage in the national media as well. In an article in the Financial Post, on February 14, 2014, entitled “Forget income splitting, Canada needs to cut tax rates”, the Fraser Institute said that Jim Flaherty was right about income splitting and that this measure does almost nothing to stimulate the economy or improve Canada's competitiveness.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation said:

[This program has] been denounced by every credible economic think tank, representing every shade of the political spectrum. Even the federal finance department has weighed in—that analysis is so damning that nearly everything but the commas was redacted before it was released to the public.

The only person who believes in and cares about income splitting is the Prime Minister. It should be noted that he stands to get $2,000 from this measure, but single-parent families will not get a penny from it. We know full well that even within the Conservative caucus, not everyone is comfortable with this patently unfair measure.

With a middle class that is having difficulty making ends meet, a collapsing job market and zero economic growth, we could surely find a better way to spend the $2 billion. The Liberal Party is proposing to give back to the middle class and stimulate economic growth.

To conclude with income splitting, I also want to talk about the misinformation being spread by the Conservatives to the effect that the Liberal Party of Canada is against income splitting for seniors. That is false. We are against the $2 billion income splitting measure in this bill.

Another measure in this omnibus bill concerns the TFSA, or the tax-free savings account. We have to talk about this. I will come back to the fact that this is an omnibus bill, which is really ridiculous.

I would like to clearly state that the Liberal Party supports TFSAs. In their current form, they are an excellent savings vehicle. However, the government has decided to double the TFSA limit in this bill, and that is not right.

Some incorrect statistics are being quoted about TFSAs. Let us clarify. According to the Department of Finance, 18% of Canadians contribute to a TFSA and 40% of those people make the maximum contribution of $5,500. That means that only 7% of Canadians make the maximum contribution of $5,500 to a TFSA.

The government likes to bandy those numbers about and often says that families that earn $60,000 will benefit from the TFSA. Let us clarify. Before TFSAs were introduced, families were struggling to save money. When that measure was introduced, they took all of their savings from previous years and contributed the maximum amount to a TFSA.

The Conservative government always likes to boast that families that earn $60,000 or more can contribute the maximum amount to a TFSA. However, let us be clear. How can a family with a gross income of $60,000 a year that files a tax return manage to save $20,000 per family or $10,000 per person? I do not know any Canadian who earns $60,000 and can save $10,000 a year. That is completely unacceptable.

Still on the topic of the TFSA, the Parliamentary Budget Officer's job is to keep us informed, and he thinks that one-third of the cost of the TFSA will be borne by the provinces. We now understand why the provinces hate this proposal.

Since TFSAs are not taken into account in the calculation of income-tested benefits, old age security cheques will start showing up in the mailboxes of seniors who do not need it. What did the Conservatives do? They have no problem taking away these payments from the seniors aged 65 to 67 who need it most. That is the reality.

We now know why the Conservative government chose to push the retirement age to 67. It wanted to save some money at the expense of seniors aged 65 to 67 who are most in need of help. Why? In order to finance gifts for the wealthy or those who are already well off. A society is judged on the basis of how it treats its most vulnerable. That is worth mentioning.

Let us talk about other measures. The universal child care benefit, the UCCB, is a good idea to give back to families and enable them to take care of their children. It is expensive to raise children. Putting money in the pockets of parents helps them make their own choices about how best to raise their kids.

The thing is, not all Canadian families have the same needs. The families of the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada do not need this benefit, this enhanced version of the universal child care benefit, the UCCB, that provides $100 here and $60 there. That money should be going to middle-class families and those working hard to join it. Giving money back to those who really need it should be the priority.

That brings us to the plan that the Liberal Party leader announced on Monday. It is clear. The plan says that we will give money back to the middle class and stimulate growth through very simple, generous, ambitious and, above all, tax-free measures. The Conservatives think that Canadian taxpayers are not smart enough to understand some of the measures they have come up with. The UCCB is taxable. The Conservatives dole out $100 here and there, but it is not really $100 because the following year, people have to include that amount in their tax return and pay tax on it. That is unacceptable. Why play with tax measures like that? It is fundamentally a very complex law, and the measures they are proposing add to that complexity.

We say no. We need to simplify it as much as possible. For instance, if a family has a child under the age of six and an income of $30,000, we will give that family the non-taxable amount of $6,400. That amount is net and crystal clear. If, however, that child is between the ages of 6 and 17, we will give that family a Canada child benefit worth $5,400. It is clear. Those amounts are based on income, and there are other benefits that families with higher incomes will receive.

Those are two simple measures. First of all, there is a general 7% tax cut for the middle class. This measure will really benefit all Canadians. The second measure is the Canada child benefit. I do not think that the Prime Minister's family or the Liberal leader's family need to receive the universal child care benefit, as I said. Let us give it to the people who really need it the most. That is what our measure does.

This is a clear and ambitious plan, as I said. All of that is in the bill, and the government introduced an omnibus bill. I should be talking about that in my speech. There are some measures in the bill that we agree with. However, since it is an omnibus bill, we will be voting against it. It contains some important measures, but for us, the most important thing to remember is that everything I talked about is for the rich. The Liberal Party has presented an ambitious and generous plan for all families, because we need to give money back to middle-class families and stimulate economic growth, which will be good for Canada as a whole.

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

Mr. Speaker, as always, I am honoured to speak in the House, but I am not particularly honoured to speak to Bill C-59. This bill is more than 150 pages long and will be devastating not only for the Canadian economy, but also for Canadian workers.

The Conservatives have once again introduced an omnibus bill designed to push through hundreds of changes that are not subject to study or oversight. This bill contains more than 270 clauses amending dozens of laws, most of which have nothing to do with the budget.

The Conservatives' income splitting plan will cost Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars and will benefit only the wealthy. The increase to the TFSA limit will only make things worse.

With more than 150 pages in this massive omnibus bill, yet again we see the Conservatives essentially abusing the parliamentary process. Today The Globe and Mail called it a “contemptuous disregard for Parliament” and “an ugly precedent”.

I remember what the current Prime Minister—and not for long prime minister—said while in opposition about omnibus legislation that he did not like. He said:

Second, in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?

We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse?

The massive omnibus bill that the Prime Minister was criticizing was 20 pages long. However, Conservatives have brought in three omnibus bills that were over 450 pages long, and another one topped out at over 880 pages.

Therefore, I guess what Conservatives are saying to Parliament and to Canadians is that in such an abusive relationship, this is just a small abuse, so we should accept it and tolerate it. However, in one fell swoop, dozens of laws would be affected, from Parliament Hill security to terrorism to veterans to undermining basic human rights protections for unpaid interns to undermining the charter protection for collective bargaining for public servants in this country. All of that is rammed into this one bill, and Conservatives are going to ram it through Parliament just as surely as day follows night.

Let us first set the context of where this particular budget lands in the Canadian economy.

Members will notice that the Conservatives' talking points about the economic performance of the government are increasingly stale. That is because the only numbers that show any positive light on what is happening in the Canadian context are now three, four, and five years old, and according to the Department of Finance, for the last 15 months growth in Canada's economy has been less than 1%.

To put that in historical context, that is the worst record outside of a recession for any government in more than 40 years. I will repeat that: outside of recession, the last almost year and a half has been the worst growth record of any government in the last four and a half decades. Still Conservatives would have us believe that everything is fine, despite massive job losses in the energy sector, retail sector, and sectors like manufacturing. We have now lost more than 420,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs over the nine long years since the Conservatives took power. That is more than half a million manufacturing jobs lost since 2000.

This is devastating for the Canadian economy. As we have seen and as the Governor of the Bank of the Canada shows us consistently, when oil prices rise, the Canadian dollar rises, which tends to have a somewhat negative effect on manufacturing output, and when it drops, manufacturing typically picks back up in Canada. However, the Canadian dollar now hovers around 80¢. We have not seen that uptick in the manufacturing sector, because things are different now. Under the Conservatives' watch, the downturn in manufacturing has become more permanent.

There are in fact 250,000 fewer jobs in Canada right now than before the recession hit and more than 160,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians than before the recession hit. We have not yet recovered from the depths of the recession. We have not yet seen the recovery that Canadians were expecting. Certainly, if one believed all the ads the government has bought with taxpayer money—almost $750 million worth—one would think everything was perfect. However, Canadians know different, because Canadians right now are carrying the highest debt loads in Canadian history. Each individual household is now carrying, on average, more debt than we ever have since our country was founded.

We also see, from a government that claims fiscal austerity and prudence, that the historical record has actually met the current record. The Conservatives have added more than $150 billion to the national debt. That is $4,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country. We know it is more than $4,000 per person because by the time we pay that debt off—if we ever pay it off, and certainly not under our current government's plan—it will be much more than $4,000, because when one borrows money, it always ends up costing more. Every Canadian has had that experience with student loans or car loans or a mortgage. However, that is how much the Conservatives have added to the national debt.

People might ask what we got in return. Did we get a robust economy? Did we get a more diversified and sustainable economy, such as the one the leader in Alberta, Rachel Notley, talks about creating for that fine province? No. We have again seen an overreliance on a soaring commodity price that goes up and goes down. We have seen yet another opportunity squandered by the government.

If the Conservative economic plan was working, then the Conservative economic plan would be working, and it is not. Canadians know it, and no $750 million ad buy is going to convince them otherwise.

We have also seen in the budget document, this omnibus bill, that there are a lot of perks in it for the wealthy and the well connected. They do okay. In fact, they do great.

Bankers do not tend to use very colourful or aggressive language generally, but when asked about the performance of the Canadian economy just a few weeks ago, the Governor of the Bank of Canada called it “atrocious”. He is right.

In an atrocious economic environment, one would think job one from the government of the day would be to create jobs, to get people back to work, to diversify the economy, to invest in the economy in ways that would actually produce the jobs that we have been missing since the last global recession. Instead, we see the true priorities of the Conservatives when it comes to jobs, and that is their own jobs. They are hoping to buy back re-election just one more time.

“Give us one more chance”, say the Conservatives, “We're going to figure this thing out this time.” What they are looking to do is buy some votes and trick folks yet again with something like income splitting, which will cost in the order of $2.2 billion and do nothing for 85% of Canadian families whatsoever. It does something for 15% of families, and those families are particularly in the wealthier brackets. Nearly $2.5 billion will go to help the top 15%, and produce what in the economy? Nothing, except a little help for those who already have had quite a bit of help.

One might say that is enough of a bauble to give to wealthier Canadians, but the Conservatives say, “Wait; there is more. We are going to take a thing called the tax-free savings account, which right now has a limit of $5,500 per year, and nearly double it to $10,000.”

When we look at the actual impact of doing something like this, we see that tax-free savings accounts, despite the claim from the government, have not increased savings for Canadians. There is no evidence whatsoever that since TFSAs were first introduced in 2009, there has been any increase in savings for Canadians, which is the whole reason the government brought in the program in the first place. If the intention of the program was to help people save and people are not saving as a result of the program, we enter the very definition of insanity, which is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. However, that is exactly what we get when we deal with Conservatives.

Let us look instead at what the doubling of the TFSA actually does. There was a moment of truth in this whole debate that came from the Minister of Finance. Occasionally he drops by and says some things or talks to the odd reporter.

He said that this thing gets very expensive later on, which was the question, because it does. The cost to the treasury gets up into the tens of billions of dollars. He said, “Why don't we leave that to the Prime Minister's granddaughter to solve that problem?” Is that not nice? Is it not nice when a generation before us says, “Yes, we're creating a huge hole, but we're going to let the people a generation or two down the line fill it in”.

Those are not the conservatives I know. In the place I represent in northwestern British Columbia, the conservatives I know always look to make things better for their kids and grandkids, and that extends beyond the financial into the environmental. It is the idea that we try to leave the place better than we found it. Both on economics and the environment, Conservatives are at least consistent. They are into the scorched earth policies. They are into the ones that they will pay later. They are like the guy in Vegas with the ATM card who just does not know how to quit.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Office, which the Conservatives routinely quote in this place, an office we helped the Conservatives create, if we all remember, some nine years ago, this doubling of the TFSA would give the top 20% who receive this benefit 180% more than every other group of Canadians below them. Think about that for a moment. Almost double the advantages, almost double the money, almost double the benefits of everyone else combined would go to the people at the very top of the pile.

We also know that the PBO expects the benefit to high-wealth households to increase by 35%, while low- and middle-wealth households are, and this is a quote, “not projected to be materially affected by the proposed changes”. Therefore, middle- and working-class Canadians get bupkes; nothing. It is for the wealthiest group, which does have 10 or 20 grand just burning holes in their pockets at the end of every year.

I do not know what middle-class group of Canadians the Conservatives are talking to, but the ones I deal with are struggling just to make ends meet, with the high cost of child care, electricity, paying for their mortgages, and just keeping their homes good and happy. Most of the families I talk to do not have $10,000 or $20,000. Do members know who does? Do members know who is maxing out on this already and will max out in the future? It is the wealthy households. This is why the Conservatives are able to skew the stats. The children of wealthy families are maxing out their TFSAs and will again. It is a shelter for wealthy Canadians, which is how they are proposing to use it, making the problem even worse.

New Democrats maintain that keeping the TFSA where it is is fine, but doubling it will end up costing tens of billions of dollars, and again we have to ask to what effect.

There is so much in this bill. Let us talk for a moment about a proposal the NDP made as the government was clamouring to get to a balanced budget. We said we have this child poverty situation in this country that years and years ago the House of Commons solemnly committed to eradicate, under the leadership of Ed Broadbent, the former New Democratic leader and a mentor to many of us. All members stood in the House, Conservatives included, and said, “We are going to get to this problem, because it is a problem that affects all of us. It does not know right and left. It is right and wrong, and this is right”. The House of Commons said it was going to do something about it, so New Democrats came up with a solution.

The tax code is thousands of pages long, by the way. It costs billions of dollars for Canadians to file every year. The Conservatives only make that problem worse and more expensive for individuals and small businesses. They do not mind, because it is all about the next election. However, under that massive tax code, there is a little loophole for CEOs, for those who receive their pay in stock options. Again, I am thinking about the middle- and working-class Canadians I know. Not a lot of them get paid in stock options.

People who get paid in stock options pay almost half the tax that everyone else does. Is that not nice? Is it not nice to get paid in stock options and only pay half the tax? For people making north of $250,000, $350,000 a year, times are tough.

There is a $750 million per year loophole in the tax code now that we said should be closed. It is easy, it is understandable, and we know what to do with it: take every single dollar from that loophole and help eradicate child poverty in Canada. Who is going to vote against that? Who is going to stand in this place and say no, no, no, the folks in the corner offices, the CEOs, the guys driving the Maseratis and the Ferraris, they need that money. It is hard to get to St. Barts and St. Kitts these days. Prices are high for that second, third, and fourth vacation home.

Instead, New Democrats said to use it to eradicate child poverty, which would help right across the board, not only the children and families involved who are living below the poverty line but our education system and our health care system, and it would help Canada be a more productive and prosperous nation.

We have also seen in this massive bill the ramming in of an entire veterans bill, which was before the House, Bill C-58, and that the government has been stalling on for years, to help out our veterans. After the Conservatives' shameful treatment, which continues to this day, denying veterans of this country the benefits they are so deserving of, they decided to pick it up holus bolus and drop it into an omnibus bill.

Just before this debate started, we sought the strength of the House of Commons to take that veterans bill and move it right to committee today. What did the Conservatives say? No. They said no. They said they did not want to do that. They would rather have it go through this process that will take weeks and perhaps months and go to the Senate and all the rest of that stuff. That is how much they care about veterans. It is a political football for them to toss around again and again.

The changing of Hill security, the changing of a constitutional decree about how security should be done on the Hill, is also in this.

New Democrats have been fighting, through the good work of a number of our MPs from all across the country, to protect unpaid interns from unreasonable work and sexual harassment at work. We had a bill we have been fighting for through Parliament. The Conservatives denied it. They put something in here, but they forgot to put the part in to protect unpaid interns from sexual harassment. They forgot, they said. It did not come up, they said. We had legislation going through the House. These are disproportionately young Canadians and they are vulnerable in the workplace because obviously, if they are seeking an internship, particularly an unpaid one, they are trying to get a resume together, trying to get a foot in the very difficult marketplace and job market. Yet Conservatives found no room in their hearts to actually fix this.

I have to say a couple of things that are positive, because I am an optimistic guy. There are four things out of 157 pages. That is not bad. Unsurprisingly, they were proposals we put forward to the House of Commons.

Before I went into politics, I was a small-business owner. I know intuitively, and the facts back it up, that small businesses are the engine of the Canadian economy. They create eight out of 10 new jobs in Canada in the private sector. They account for almost 45% of our GDP, the strength of this economy. While Conservatives and Liberals alike have been handing out billions upon tens of billions of corporate tax cuts to the largest corporations, we said how about a little break for small businesses. The NDP proposed a 2% drop in the small business tax rate.

We also said that manufacturing has been hammered. More than half a million jobs have been lost in just 15 years, and more than 400,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing since the government took over. We said let us help out manufacturing.

We also said that we want to see innovation, because Canada's private sector consistently has one of the lowest levels of innovation in research and development of any of the developed nations. We have to change that, so we put a motion to the government and debated all day in the House of Commons. What did the government say? It said that is was bad economics and a bad idea, and the Conservatives voted against the NDP motion.

Lo and behold, surprise of surprises, those very same ideas ended up in the omnibus budget bill. I guess they were such bad economics that the Conservatives found themselves agreeing with the NDP's ideas. Good for them. Imitation is the best form of flattery, but imitation is obviously not as good as the original. The Conservatives decided to lower the small business tax rate twice as slow as what we had proposed. There is urgency in trying to buy some votes from wealthier Canadians, but they will take their time when it comes to helping small businesses.

Conservatives also changed some rules about RRIFs, which the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River had proposed, and they extended the compassionate care benefits in EI to help people who are caring for a loved one at end of life. We think that is good. We think we need to change the rules around EI so that more people, particularly women, who are the ones who do 75% of this palliative care, actually qualify for EI.

In summation, to say this is yet another failed opportunity is far too gracious. This is a government so focused on its own prospects it is unable to see the concern we have, shared by the governor of the bank, by private sector economists, and by developed nations, writ large, that the Canadian economy is sputtering. It is not creating the jobs. It has not recovered those jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“this House decline to give second reading to Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, because it:

a) fails to support working- and middle-class families through the introduction of affordable childcare and a $15-per-hour federal minimum wage;

b) imposes wasteful and unfair income-splitting measures which primarily benefit the wealthy and offer nothing to 85% of Canadian families;

c) fails to protect interns against workplace sexual harassment or unreasonable hours of work;

d) implements expanded Tax-Free Savings Account measures which benefit the wealthiest households while leaving major fiscal problems to our grandchildren;

e) rolls a separate, stand-alone, and supportable piece of legislation concerning Canada's veterans into an omnibus bill that contains vastly unrelated, unsupportable measures; and

f) attacks the right to free and fair collective bargaining for hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers.”

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be here today to discuss Bill C-59, the new chapter of our government's economic action plan.

It is apparent that our plan continues to yield results. Indeed, Canada continues to move forward in the face of a fragile external environment and global economic uncertainty. Despite this uncertainty, Canada has achieved one of the best economic performances among G7 countries over the recovery. Real gross domestic product has increased more in Canada than in any other G7 country since the end of the recession. Furthermore, since we introduced the economic action plan to respond to the global recession, Canada has recovered all of the jobs lost during the recession, and more. In fact, the Canadian economy has posted one of the strongest job-creation records in the G7 over the recovery, with over 1.2 million net new jobs created since June 2009.

Today's legislation would continue our government's hard work. It would help families and communities prosper, support jobs and economic growth, ensure the security of Canadians, and of course, fulfill our promise to balance the budget.

In my allotted time today, I would like to highlight some of the important and thoughtful measures in Bill C-59 and illustrate how they would benefit Canadians.

Our government holds a fundamental belief: those who work hard to earn their dollars deserve to keep them. It is why we have cut taxes over and over again. In fact, this government has lowered taxes every year since coming into office. That is over 180 different times. As a result, the overall federal tax burden is now at its lowest level in more than 50 years. Canadians at all income levels are benefiting from the tax relief introduced by our government, with low- and middle-income families receiving proportionately greater relief.

In 2015-2016, Canadian families and individuals would receive $37 billion in tax relief and increased benefits as a result of our government's actions taken since 2006. For example, a typical two-earner family of four would receive tax relief and increased benefits of up to $6,600 in 2015 thanks to measures such as the family tax cut, the universal child care benefit, the GST reductions, the introduction of the children's fitness tax credit, and other broad-based income tax relief measures.

By reducing taxes consistently and enhancing benefits to Canadians, the government has given families and individuals greater flexibility to make the choices that are right for them. Canadians know that it is only the Conservatives who can be trusted to truly lower taxes for them.

Bill C-59 would go even further to help Canadian families make ends meet by supporting tax fairness through the family tax cut, which would allow a higher-income spouse to in effect transfer up to $50,000 of taxable income to a spouse in a lower income bracket. By increasing the universal child care benefit for children under age six and expanding it to children aged six through 17, parents would be eligible for a benefit of $160 per month for each child under the age of six and $60 per month for children aged six through 17. This is great news for every Canadian family with children. Increasing the child care expense deduction dollar limits by $1,000, effective for the 2015 tax year, would mean that the maximum amount that could be claimed would increase to $8,000 from $7,000 for children under age seven and to $5,000 from $4,000 for children aged seven through 16, and to $11,000 from $10,000 for children who are eligible for the disability tax credit.

Every single Canadian family with children under the age of 18 would benefit from these important measures. The Liberal leader admitted that he believed “benefiting every single family is not what is fair”. I disagree. Our government believes that every single Canadian family would keep more of its own money, and that is the absolute definition of fairness.

We would also increase the tax-free savings account annual contribution limit to $10,000 to help Canadians save more of their hard-earned money. Whether they want to purchase a new home or car, start a new business, or save for retirement, Canadians have many reasons to save at every stage of their lives. That is the whole reason our government introduced the tax-free savings account in the first place. The TFSA provides greater savings incentives for low- and modest-income individuals, because in addition to the tax savings, neither the income earned in a TFSA nor withdrawals from it affect a person's federal income-tested benefits and credits, like the Canada child tax credit or old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits.

I am proud that Bill C-59 would give Canadians more options when it comes to saving for their future and would let Canadians, not the government, manage their own money.

Just as we are making it easier for Canadians to save, we want them to feel confident that they will be able to enjoy their golden years. The fact is, Canadians are living longer than ever and are opening new rich chapters in their lives in retirement. That is why Bill C-59 introduces measures to give seniors more freedom and flexibility when it comes to managing their retirement income.

For example, Canadians' retirement savings are typically held in tax assisted registered plans, such as RPPs, registered pension plans; registered retirement savings plans, RRSPs; registered retirement income funds, RRIFs; and tax-free savings accounts, TFSAs.

Bill C-59 would adjust the RRIF minimum withdrawal factors that apply in respect of ages 71 to 94 to better reflect more recent long-term historical real rates of return and expected inflation. As a result, the new RRIF factors would be substantially lower than the existing factors, helping seniors across the country. By permitting more capital preservation, the new factors would help reduce the risk of outliving one's savings while ensuring that the tax deferral provided on RRSP and RRIF savings continued to serve a retirement income purpose.

This is another example of how we are supporting seniors, not looking for new ways to tax them. Unlike the opposition members, who would much too eagerly jump at the opportunity to tax Canadian seniors, and they have proven that recently, we believe that the best thing we can do is provide extra support for seniors with lower taxes, solid pensions, and a strong health care system.

Let me take a minute to recognize the brave men and women who have stood and fought, and continue to, for our freedom. Those are Canada's veterans. We must never forget the contribution veterans have made to our freedom and security. They have willingly defended the security of Canadians knowing full well the potential cost of their own commitment. We owe them our compassion, our respect, and our gratitude.

With the implementation of the new veterans charter in 2006, the government significantly increased the range of benefits and services it provides to veterans. This included not just compensation but support to help restore their ability to function back at home and in their communities. However, we can always do more for these heroes, which is why I am extremely proud that Bill C-59 proposes additional improvements to the charter, including new investments to enhance benefits for moderately to severely disabled veterans and increased support for family caregivers. Specifically, it would create a critical injury benefit, which would provide a $70,000 tax-free award to Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans who have suffered service-related severe, sudden, and traumatic injuries or diseases.

Furthermore, many veterans depend on the support of friends and family who often provide informal caregiving services. Therefore, the bill would create a new tax-free family caregiver relief benefit to seriously disabled veterans who require daily assistance from an informal caregiver. This new benefit would provide annual financial support of $7,238 to eligible veterans so that they could better afford paid services and give respite to their loved ones.

When I speak with veterans in my home riding of North Vancouver, I appreciate the sacrifice these Canadians have made. I am pleased that the bill can go a long way in giving them more of the assistance and support they need.

However, there is still more, and I would like to turn my attention to small businesses.

We know that small businesses are the lifeblood of the Canadian economy. They account for over 90% of all businesses in Canada and employ two-thirds of all Canadians. Needless to say, our government believes that small businesses should spend their time growing their businesses and creating jobs, not choking on high taxes and excess red tape. It is why we have repeatedly cut taxes significantly for small businesses and their owners. Building on our record, today's legislation would reduce the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019, the largest tax rate cut for small businesses in more than a quarter of a century.

For example, for a Canadian small business with taxable income of $500,000, as a result of this tax cut and other measures since 2006, the amount of federal tax paid would be 46% lower than in 2006, which is nearly half of what is was just nine short years ago. This would mean an annual tax reduction of up to $38,600 that could be reinvested in the business to fuel its growth, retain capital and create long-lasting jobs.

I would now like to discuss one of our government's most important promises: balancing the budget.

When the great recession hit us, we responded quickly and effectively with a historic stimulus program. Our plan worked. We emerged from the recession faster and stronger than virtually any other major advanced economy. When the crisis passed, we set out on a course to balance budgets, but we did not do it by raising taxes or slashing transfers for education and health care, like the Liberals did in the 1990s.

It is really important to point out that we balanced budgets while keeping transfers now at the highest level in history. We focused on controlling operating expenses for federal departments, identifying efficiencies that focused on making government operations better and more efficient. As a result, the deficit has been reduced from $55.6 billion at the height of the global economic crisis to a projected surplus this year of $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion the year after. This is great news for Canadians everywhere.

Indeed, when we survey the state of the global economy, Canada's reputation for sound fiscal management is ironclad, and the world looks to Canada as a leader and economic powerhouse, well tested against the odds. That is a reputation our government intends to keep and it is exactly why Bill C-59 introduces balanced budget legislation. The legislation would ensure that the hard-won gains achieved over the past five years would remain in place for future generations.

We have said it before and we will say it again: budgets do not balance themselves. The opposition members, who seem preoccupied with high taxes and deficits, may think that they do, but here on this side of the House we know that fiscal discipline, balanced budgets and strong leadership will leave our children and grandchildren with an even more prosperous country.

The legislation would also ensure that the only acceptable deficits would be ones that respond to a recession or an extraordinary circumstance, such as a war or natural disaster. Deficits outside of a recession or an extraordinary circumstance are unacceptable and the need to return to balanced budgets is immediate. To that end, this legislation proposes that, should Canada again enter into deficit, the finance minister would be required to testify before the House of Commons committee on finance within 30 days and present a plan with concrete timelines to return to balanced budgets.

Moreover, should the deficit be due to a recession or other extraordinary circumstance, operating spending would be frozen, as would the salaries of cabinet ministers and deputy ministers government-wide once the recovery begins. If on the other hand the deficit is due to mismanagement, operating budgets will be frozen automatically and the salaries of cabinet ministers and deputy ministers alike would be reduced by 5%.

This approach would ensure that any increase in spending to respond to a recession, war or natural disaster would be temporary, targeted and timely. It is just another way that our government is taking leadership to ensure long-term prosperity for Canadians.

I could list many more measures in this bill that would benefit all Canadians, but I see that my time is almost up.

Our government's hard work has borne fruit. Our economic action plan is working, and we continue to get noticed on the global stage for our rock solid economy. In fact, ours is the largest economy that still has a Triple-A long-term credit rating. Canada is one of only a handful of countries in the world that still has that Triple-A credit rating.

For example, the World Economic Forum rated Canada's banking system as the soundest in the world for the seventh year in a row in its annual Global Competitiveness Report. This is unheard of. According to KPMG, total business tax costs in Canada are the lowest in the G7, and 46% lower than those in the United States. In fact, Bloomberg says that Canada is the second best place in the world to do business. When was the last time that happened? I do not think that has ever happened.

This economic resilience also reflects the actions that our government took before the global crisis, including lowering taxes and paying down debt. In fact, we paid down about $39 billion in debt prior to the recession. We have also reduced red tape and promoted free trade and innovation.

Our government's priorities have always been to create well-paying and secure jobs for Canadians and Canadian families, to lower taxes for Canadian families and businesses, and to balance the budget. Bill C-59 does not stray from these priorities. In fact, the bill would ensure that Canada's future is secure and prosperous, with a healthy economy fuelled by low taxes and sustainable public finances, all while helping families, seniors, veterans, small businesses and many more. It is another reminder that a government can reject high-tax and high-spend schemes that would put us back in a deficit and still provide meaningful support for all Canadians.

I encourage all members of the House to read the legislation. I hope that the opposition gives the bill the support that it deserves.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

moved that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Veterans

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in committee, the Minister of Veterans Affairs was extremely economical with the truth, blaming the opposition for the delay of passage of Bill C-58 when they themselves introduced a bill and never brought it back.

The Conservatives are shoving it in Bill C-59, an omnibus bill, knowing full well that we in the NDP will never vote confidence in the Conservatives.

Will the government now agree with our motion after question period to move Bill C-58 immediately to committee for immediate review?

International Development

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are bypassing their own accountability legislation. Bill C-59 creates a new developing financing institution within Export Development Canada. It will not be covered by the government's own Official Development Assistance Accountability Act. There are no guarantees the funds will be used for poverty reduction.

Why are the Conservatives bypassing their own accountability law? Is the DFI about poverty reduction or about advancing commercial interests abroad?

Labour

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Conservatives to walk the walk.

The Minister of Labour erroneously stated that the Canadian Intern Association was in favour of the rules that the government plans to implement to govern unpaid internships. In an open letter, the president stated that Bill C-59 would actually expose interns to exploitation.

Will the Conservatives adopt the NDP's proposals to provide meaningful protection to unpaid interns instead of proposing half measures?

Physical Obstruction—Speaker's Ruling

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also, with my friend from St. John's East, do not intend to use the full 20 minutes.

We have been talking in this place this morning about parliamentary privilege and its roots in our Constitution. I just want to review some of them. I want to start by saying that I appreciate the Speaker's ruling of a prima facie finding of a breach of parliamentary privilege in the delays that occurred and in the indiscriminatory way pedestrian travel and vehicular travel was stopped by the RCMP without regard to whether they were stopping members of Parliament, who have a specific privilege to access Parliament Hill, tourists, or anyone else.

We have already had some very good points made by other members. I will just touch on them briefly.

The House of Commons security officers and the Senate security officers know on sight who is a member of Parliament, who belongs here, and who might be a stranger of whom they should take some note or be concerned about. In an event such as October 22, and let us hope such an event never occurs again, I certainly would have a great deal more confidence in the House of Commons security folks and officers because they actually know which person in the room is a member of Parliament and which person is someone they have never seen before.

Every day, as I approach the House of Commons, and it is not every day I take a taxi, but when I do I encounter obviously lovely young people working in the RCMP who do not know if I am here to clean the floors in the building or wait on tables in the dining room or if I might in fact be a member of Parliament. I feel a lot more confident in the House of Commons security system, and I have a lot of misgivings about the decisions that were made in the rushed-through debate that took place here on February 6.

I also should note again that Bill C-59 would take that rushed debate, in an omnibus fashion, and put in charge of security in the House of Commons, for the first time in our entire history, an RCMP officer and not someone who, as my friend from St. John's East quite properly pointed out, should in fact, and historically always did, report to the Speaker.

When we talk about these privileges, the privilege that exists in the House of Commons, it has its roots in the preamble of the Constitution Act of 1867, which calls for a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom. Parliamentary privilege was partially codified in 1689 in the U.K. Bill of Rights, in article 9, in the first act of William and Mary, which has constitutional force in Canada.

The freedom of speech that is referred to in that section was asserted at least as early as 1523, so when we stand in this place and say that parliamentary privilege means something and has a long-standing tradition, we do not mean the last couple of years or the last couple of decades. We mean since 1867. We are talking about historical, rooted parliamentary privilege that goes back to 1523.

Prior to our own confederation, and as to the specific grant from the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the common law principle already well established that privileges were not just incidental to a legislature. They were deemed to exist. In fact, parliamentary privilege today carries the same constitutional weight as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We have had some litigation and court actions that have further established and ferreted out the questions. If an event occurs in the House of Commons, it is not the same as saying that we as members of Parliament have some sort of diplomatic immunity, that if one were to assault another, there are no laws to cover this. We are not a law unto ourselves. We are in Parliament. That was established in the Vaid decision, which dealt with the human rights concern of a former employee of the Speaker about whether discrimination had taken place. Parliamentary privilege does not extend so far as to say that we cannot exert rights we have under other laws in this place.

I did find it interesting, in going through some research, this finding of one of the great constitutional law experts of this place, Joseph Maingot, who looked back to when parliamentary privilege was asserted in terms of our security. This example comes from 1866, when there was a physical altercation between an assistant librarian and a member of Parliament. I cannot imagine such a thing happening today, but in any case, the member of Parliament raised it in the House, and the Speaker's remarks make it very clear what the role of the Speaker is in security in this place.

I will cite from the book, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, found at page 140, citing the journal of the province of Canada, from August 1, 1866 in which the Speaker said:

...it is a power incidental to the constitution of this House to preserve peace and order within the precincts and protect Members of it from insults and assault. This power is necessary not only to insure the freedom of action of Members, but that freedom of discussion which is one of their fundamental rights.

I would point out, once again, that it is not just votes, and I want to underscore this point. According to the most early finding of parliamentary privilege by a Canadian Speaker, it is very clear that freedom of discussion is one of our fundamental rights. Therefore, we should not be prevented, even by seconds, from taking up a spot in a speaking order. We all know as parliamentarians how easily one can find an opportunity for speaking when we come to this place to enter into debate, such as this morning.

We did not know when we showed up this morning from the government orders that the Speaker would have ready for us a finding on questions of privilege raised earlier by members of the NDP, but we adjust ourselves. We come here and as parliamentarians, we passionately embrace the principles of this place and respect the supremacy of Parliament at all times. However, one of our most fundamental privileges and rights as parliamentarians is freedom of discussion. If we are impeded in that, then our rights are infringed and democracy is violated.

I cited a finding from 1866. We know that in the past number of years, the privileges and elections committee of the Canadian House of Commons has always ruled that police forces coming onto the precinct on official business require the permission of the Speaker. Not to belabour the point, and I think everyone in this House knows, but the exclusive privilege of the House has been to regulate proceedings within its own walls, which is a fundamental principle that must be respected. However, we are making changes, clearly from the rushed debate and subsequent vote of early February to the now rushed omnibus Bill C-59 with changes to create security for the parliamentary precinct with a director who shall always be under law a member of the RCMP, who would therefore not be reporting to the Speaker. These are not arcane changes. These are not small matters if we are to think forward to another era.

I agree with my friends who have earlier pointed out that this is not a partisan matter. This is a question of Constitution. For example, another executive could be composed of a party that does not even exist at this point in our parliamentary discourse and no one should take offence. What if we had a prime minister someday who decided that it would be convenient to stop members of opposition parties from getting to the House for votes and was able to ask the RCMP to make it so? There is a fundamental principle of democracy that requires that the privilege of Parliament and the protection of our rights and privileges in this place is vested in the Speaker and never in a prime minister.

We are at the very moment going through a fundamental transition, which is a breach with all principles and all tradition going back more than 500 years, and we are doing it in a rushed fashion. This strikes me as wrong, prima facie.

We have an opportunity today to see that this issue comes to crystallization in a couple of events that could be dismissed as minor.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you and I urge all my colleagues in this place to find that the conflict of RCMP officers stopping members of Parliament from getting to Parliament Hill is not trivial. It is the crystallization of a very dangerous change, which we will not adequately discuss in omnibus bill fashion, but which the PROC could look at and could call witnesses on.

I urge members to vote to send this matter to PROC and to request, for instance, that we hear expert witnesses, including our former Sergeant-at-Arms, current ambassador to Ireland, Kevin Vickers. I would wish to hear his best advice.

I remember very clearly when we rushed through discussion on February 6, and when the opposition raised concerns that it was a mistake to consolidate security of the House of Commons and the parliamentary precinct overall into the RCMP's hands, without disrespect to that agency, but on constitutional grounds. The response from many members of the Conservative Party was well surely we can all agree. The Auditor General said some years ago, that we need to have a consolidation and better integration of security on Parliament Hill. I do not think anyone would disagree with that. The question is, who gets to be in charge of that improved security?

Why not have the Speaker of the House and the Speaker of the Senate be in control, as they have always been, of a consolidated force where the Sergeant-at-Arms of this place is in charge not just of the physical building, but of the grounds? Why should we have a decision that overturns centuries of constitutional divisions that have a very real democratic purpose: where we meet with the privileges and protections of our rights, liberties and freedoms, that the protection of those rights and liberties and freedoms be vested in the Speaker and never in the executive branch. It is a fundamental question.

Now that we have the opportunity through what might be dismissed as minor incidents, I urge all members to find they give us the opportunity to have proper discussion, thorough review, to call the right witnesses and not allow Bill C-59 as an omnibus budget bill to blast through and create permanent changes, or at least changes until some future government can repeal them, and the dismantling of a system that has worked and served us very well.

I want to close my remarks by thanking the House of Commons security officers and the Senate security officers. These are the officers, particularly in the House of Commons on October 22, who risked their lives and did the most to protect us. Although as other members have noted we do not have reports from what happened on that day, we do know that the gunman was stopped at the door by an unarmed House security guard, Samearn Son. He wrestled with the gunman and stopped what could have been a much worse event by giving others the chance to prepare themselves.

I mean no disrespect to the RCMP, but officers did not notice someone running by them with a gun. When they saw a chauffeur being removed from a limousine and a hijacked vehicle moving up to Centre Block, it is hindsight to say why did they not put on their sirens, but we know there was no warning to our internal security force from our external security force. I want one more time before closing to say again how deeply all of us in this place are grateful to our former Sergeant-at-Arms and the entire security team in this place.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I will address the issue of Bill C-59. Over the last number of years, since the majority Conservative government, we have seen a different attitude toward the way legislation is passed. The best example of that would be the forced time allocation that is put on the House for virtually all legislation, which prevents the type of dialogue that is important between members of Parliament.

The leader of the Green Party asked if we would have adequate debate on Bill C-59, which is a very important issue. I suspect the type of debate we will likely have on the bill will be very similar to the type of debate we have had on a number of pieces of legislation. However, in regard to that specific aspect of the legislation, it behooves us to take into consideration what we are told by the security experts, the people who truly understand the potential of terrorism.

We need to recognize that the Parliament building is a very high target area. Given the symbolism and national importance of the precinct, we need to be very careful in dealing with the issue of security. That is why I have personally entrusted the security professionals to provide us the best advice. At the same time, I am a parliamentarian first and foremost. I appreciate the importance of the privileges we have here. I will not support things that will take that away.

Finally, on the first part of her question, I believe some discussion took place prior to the Friday to which she referred. I do not know to what degree. Perhaps she was not incorporated into that dialogue, but there was definitely a sense of what was taking place among the three major political parties. I do not know the details in terms of the independents.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate something that was just mentioned by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster and ask my friend from Winnipeg North about this.

There have been dramatic changes in the security here that I believe do infringe on fundamental constitutional principles of the supremacy of Parliament, the role of the executive and the differences in how parliamentary security should be handled. There was a snap motion on Friday, February 6. I was fortunate to be able to change my plans and be here for the whole debate. We did not hear witnesses or experts before it was pushed through the House of Commons to would change our security measures to a different parliamentary precinct approach, which puts the RCMP in charge.

Again, this is no disrespect to the RCMP, but I am very concerned about the primacy and supremacy of Parliament and the constitutional role of the House of Commons security, not to mention the fact that the security officers were the ones who most bravely and unarmed did the best job protecting us on October 22. Regardless of what may have been the executive's intention, many of those House of Commons security guards now feel demoted.

Now we have Bill C-59, bringing with it Division 10 of part 3, pages 73 to 97, which is all about creating a parliamentary protective service in an omnibus fashion. Again, we will not have enough time to study it and it requires the director of parliamentary protective service to be a current standing member of the RCMP always by law.

Does my friend from Winnipeg North think we are rushing into these changes without adequate study or review and could this motion on privilege give PROC a better chance to dig into these issues?

Opposition Motion—Care for Veterans

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the opposition motion, the New Democratic Party motion. I do not usually read out the whole motion when it is a long one, as it takes up precious speaking time, but I will in this case because I find it hard to believe we are actually debating it, that this subject is actually up for debate in the House of Commons.

The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, a standalone covenant of moral, social, legal, and fiduciary obligation exists between the Canadian people and the government to provide equitable financial compensation and support services to past and active members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have been injured, disabled or have died as a result of military service, and to their dependents, which the government is obligated to fulfil.

It is hard to believe that we have to dedicate an opposition day, that we have to dedicate a day to debate what should be a no-brainer, what should be common sense, common Canadian sense.

Our veterans stood on guard for us. They stood on guard for Canada. Our veterans stood on guard for democracy. They stood on guard around the world in conflict zones like Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Libya. They stood on guard for us in humanitarian missions like Haiti, after the earthquake in January 2010, and in Newfoundland and Labrador, after Hurricane Igor that same year.

Our veterans stood on guard for us, and we must stand on guard for them. That is the essence of the sacred covenant that exists between the Government of Canada and our Armed Forces. Our responsibility, our duty, is to be there for soldiers and veterans in their moment of need, not to abandon them to budget and service cuts. I call that the ultimate insult. Too many give the ultimate sacrifice and the government gives the ultimate insult.

There have been too many examples where the Conservative government has failed to stand on guard for our veterans.

The NDP MP for Sackville—Eastern Shore, Nova Scotia, who just spoke, this party's veterans affairs critic—and an outstanding critic he is—has a quotation on his office door by a U.S. senator, “If you can't afford to take care of your veterans, then don't go to war”.

The Conservative government has not been taking care of our veterans. It was not taking care of our veterans when it closed nine Veterans Affairs offices across Canada, including one in Corner Brook, Newfoundland, my home province.

I was told just today of a Newfoundland veteran who served in Bosnia. He had to drive eight hours from Corner Brook, his home, to St. John's, the closest office, so that the staff there could start a profile on him. He drove for eight hours across the island of Newfoundland.

The Conservative government was not taking care of veterans when it cut 23% of the Veterans Affairs workforce, or 900 jobs, since 2009. The Conservative government certainly was not taking care of veterans when it spent more than $700,000 fighting Afghan veterans in court to deny the existence of the social covenant I mentioned a moment ago.

Lawyers for the government have argued that it has no obligation or social contract with veterans. Those same lawyers also argued that is unfair to bind the government to promises made nearly a century ago by another prime minister.

That social contract was struck in 1917 by then Conservative prime minister Robert Borden:

The government and the country will consider it their first duty to see that a proper appreciation of your effort and of your courage is brought to the notice of people at home that no man, whether he goes back or whether he remains in Flanders, will have just cause to reproach the government for having broken faith with the men who won and the men who died.

Not only has the Conservative government failed to take care of our veterans, to respect that sacred covenant, but it has also been playing the worst sort of politics, the sort of politics that rots faith in our political system.

The latest massive omnibus bill, Bill C-59, is the budget implementation bill. It is 167 pages, which is short by omnibus standards, and it obviously includes measures on the budget. That is the same boutique budget that we will be voting against because it would cater to the wealthy, among other reasons. It would put the needs of the more affluent and more influential people first. However, Bill C-59 contains much more than this year's budget measures. The bill touches on almost two dozen other bills, from the federal balanced budget act and the prevention of terrorist travel act to public service sick leave and Canadian Labour Code changes.

The Conservatives have also cynically included provisions to assist veterans in that omnibus bill. They do this all the time. Such a move will force opposition parties who support those measures to help veterans to vote against the bill and then—and you can take this to the bank, Mr. Speaker—the Conservatives will throw in our faces that we voted against veterans. That is the kind of government we have in power, a government that is morally spent. I can definitely get much more creative, but I do not want to cross the parliamentary line. After nine years of Conservative government, too many veterans and their families cannot access adequate health care, pensions, and other vital supports.

I had a conversation just this morning with Jamie MacWhirter. He is a Newfoundlander and he is also a veteran. Jamie MacWhirter survived a seven-month tour in Afghanistan's most volatile war zones. He survived. He drove a refuelling truck loaded with 10,000 litres of diesel. His nickname was Fireball, for obvious reasons. Near misses for Jamie included rocket attacks, the horror of a suicide bombing that killed several children, fire fights, and roadside bombs. Jamie MacWhirter survived Afghanistan in one piece only to battle a different type of nightmare back here in Canada in Newfoundland and Labrador. Jamie MacWhirter has post-traumatic stress disorder, and the battle here at home was, and still is, for help.

Jamie MacWhirter says there is some help for veterans, some services available, but too often veterans do not know about them. Too often soldiers are afraid to speak out for fear of being kicked out of the military. They are afraid to ask for help. Soldiers do not feel safe in asking for help. When they do, too often the help is not there.

Jamie MacWhirter and others have formed a support group, PTSD Buddies, to help people with post-traumatic stress disorder, to help them share experiences, and to lean on one another for support. Veterans should lean on one another. It is good that they are coming together to support one another. That is what the best kind of soldiers do. However, veterans should also be able to lean on their own government.

I mentioned earlier that the Conservative government is fighting Afghanistan vets in court to deny the existence of the social covenant. Those vets are in a group called the Equitas Society. That group states:

A veteran, whether regular or reserve, active or retired, is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank cheque made payable to “the Government of Canada,” for an amount of “up to and including their life.”

One hundred and fifty-eight Canadians were killed in combat in Afghanistan. I say this with great respect for their families, for the loved ones they left behind. Even more personnel, an estimated 160, have died from suicide since returning home from Afghanistan.

The Government of Canada has a sacred obligation as the holder of that blank cheque to stand and deliver, to stand on guard for the men and women of our forces when they ask for help.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address the motion put forward by the member of Parliament for New Westminster—Coquitlam.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville.

I urge the NDP to work with our government to improve the well-being of Canada's veterans and their families. We understand the need to provide those who have bravely served our nation in uniform with the support they need to transition to civilian life.

Our recently announced increased benefits and services are evidence of our commitment to ensuring that Canadian veterans and their families are treated with care, compassion, and respect. It is through these new measures, which are included in economic action plan 2015, that we are demonstrating the importance we place on being there for our brave men and women when they need us most.

These new benefits and services we are proposing take significant strides in improving the new veterans charter. We are moving to better support families and caregivers, those who play such a vital role in the transition process. We are respecting reservists. The purpose clause in Division 17 of Bill C-59, the economic action plan 2015 act, which my colleagues have discussed, demonstrates our government's duty and commitment to veterans. It is an ongoing commitment.

I encourage all colleagues to listen to the debate today and recognize that the measures our government is introducing would enhance the lives of those who have served our nation. It is not only about supporting those who have served, it is also about supporting their families.

We recognize the vital role the families play in the lives of the men and women in uniform and how veterans' health issues can impact those who stand by them. We understand the important role those who stand beside Canada's veterans play in their recovery and well-being.

I would like to highlight the action we have taken to support families and caregivers.

We recognize that the family caregivers of Canada's veterans play a large supporting role in providing those who have served with the care they need and deserve, which is why I am pleased to tell the House about a new benefit our government has introduced to help relieve some of the burden facing the families of those who are severely injured. A serious physical or mental injury causes not only immense challenges for the serviceman or woman but serious stress and strain on their families. Our government has proposed a new family caregiver relief benefit to provide an annual tax-free grant of $7,238. Family members who help with the care of the most seriously injured veterans can have the added flexibility of getting relief during times of added stress on the family or even help to recharge their batteries, if that is what needs to happen.

Today Veterans Affairs already pays for in-home medical care for the most severely injured veterans. This funding would be in addition to other VAC benefits already in place to support veterans' daily needs. It is a recognition of their sacrifice and the sacrifice of their families. It tops things up just a bit and makes things a little easier.

This benefit is for caregivers in the home—spouses, common-law partners, parents, or adult children—who often try to juggle raising children or family duties alongside assisting their injured loved ones. Their own careers are often sidetracked or reduced, and often their own health and wellness can be impacted when there is an injured veteran at home. This new benefit recognizes their important work and would provide them with a little extra flexibility.

This funding could be used for relief options, such as covering the cost of having a professional caregiver come into the home or covering the cost of another family member or friend travelling to the veteran's home, and it would be provided in addition to other benefits already in place to support veterans' health care needs. It is a supplement. We believe that this would make a tremendous difference for these families.

This recently announced benefit is not the only action we have taken in support of veterans. Last year we announced an increase in the number of psychological counselling sessions for families of veterans from eight to 20 sessions.

We have also invested in research to help us gain a better understanding of the impact operational stress injuries, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, have on the mental health of the spouses and children of Canadian veterans. Post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental injuries have an effect on the whole family, not just on the injured veteran. Research such as this will help us get a better handle on the complex challenges facing today's veterans, their spouses, and their children when it comes to their mental health and their mental well-being. We want to identify possible next steps in this area.

We announced that we will develop and implement veteran-specific mental-health first aid training across the country for both veterans and their families. This will provide family members and caregivers of veterans with the training they need to support their loved ones in a time of crisis. It will do this by teaching them about mental-health conditions; training them in the signs and symptoms of common mental-health disorders; providing them with the opportunity to practise crisis first aid for those with mental-health conditions; ensuring that they know where, when, and how to get help; and providing education on what type of help has been shown to be effective in their situation and why.

Those are some of the actions our government has taken to honour our commitment not only to members of the Canadian Armed Forces and veterans but to their families as well. I am disappointed to see that once again the New Democrats are playing their political games when our government has been unprecedented in the investments we have made in improving the well-being of Canadian veterans and those family members and caregivers who stand by the side of those injured veterans.

I urge all members of this House to vote in favour of the new measures our government is introducing in support of veterans and their families. It is by taking action and passing these measures that we will demonstrate our commitment and our duty to provide those who have bravely served our nation, and their families, with the help they need.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member so far as his first statement is concerned, that this has been a good week for Canadians.

It has been, because today the House of Commons voted on a ways and means motion and introduced a budget bill that would reduce the small business tax rate from 9% to 7%, although the NDP voted against that this morning, and it brought in a family tax cut to bring fairness to families, except the NDP and the Liberals voted against that.

We also introduced, of course, expanded flexibility for seniors on their RRIFs and increased room for all Canadians on tax-free savings accounts. Unfortunately, the Liberals and NDP voted against it, but that does not matter, because we delivered, and Canadians will get to enjoy the benefits of that because of the vote we had today in this House.

It has indeed been a good week for all Canadians, certainly those who care about and want lower taxes.

After this statement, we will debate Bill C-52, the Safe and Accountable Rail Act, at report stage and third reading. This bill strengthens Canada’s rail safety system, and I understand that all parties are interested in seeing this bill move forward quickly.

As I announced in the House yesterday, tomorrow shall be the third allotted day. Monday will be the fourth allotted day. Additionally, I am designating Monday as the day, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2), when we will conclude the debate on the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Finance.

On Tuesday morning, we will continue the debate on Bill C-52.

After question period today, we will consider Bill S-4, the digital privacy act, at report stage and second reading. This legislation would provide new protections for Canadians when they surf the web and shop online. These changes to protect Canadians' personal information are key elements of Digital Canada 150, our government's plan for Canada's digital future.

Starting on Wednesday, and for the remainder of next week, we will debate Bill C-59, economic action plan 2015 act, No. 1, which was introduced earlier today, as I already referenced.

This critical economic legislation would reduce taxes, including many of those I already spoke about, and deliver benefits to every Canadian family through the family tax cut; our enhancements to the universal child care benefit; encouraging savings with enhanced tax-free savings accounts; lowering the tax rates for small businesses; introducing the home accessibility tax credit, a very important improvement for seniors to help them stay in their homes for longer; and expanding compassionate leave provisions; and the list goes on and on.

As the hon. member said, it has been a very good week for Canadians, even though he opposes all of those measures.

Regrettably, the Liberal leader, earlier this week, announced that he would raise taxes for middle-class Canadians by replacing that very same family tax cut with a family tax hike, and despite this Liberal tax, the Liberal leader is discovering that budgets do not balance themselves. He has a $2 billion hole in his plan. Canada cannot afford that kind of reckless, high-tax, deficit-building approach.

In voting against our tax cuts for families set out in the ways and means motion the House adopted—

Ways and Means

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

moved that Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, be now read a first time and be printed.

(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)